Federal Register Vol. 83, No.165,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 165 (August 24, 2018)

Page Range42771-43500
FR Document

83_FR_165
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 42944 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 42983 - Notice of Request for Information Regarding Health Care Standards for QualityPDF
83 FR 42982 - Announcement for Public Meeting Regarding Health Care Standards for QualityPDF
83 FR 42937 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 42939 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 42817 - The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light TrucksPDF
83 FR 42859 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Contract Pilot and Aircraft AcceptancePDF
83 FR 42861 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Poultry Improvement PlanPDF
83 FR 42860 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Small Lots of Seeds Without Phytosanitary CertificatesPDF
83 FR 42969 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Disposal of Aeronautical Property at McGhee Tyson Airport, Alcoa, TN (TYS)PDF
83 FR 42891 - Anacostia River Watershed: Data Solicitation in Support of Revising Total Maximum Daily Loads for Debris, Floatables, TrashPDF
83 FR 42780 - Lignosulfonic Acid, Calcium, Comp. With 1,6 Hexanediamine Polymer With Guanidine Hydrochloride (1:1); Tolerance ExemptionPDF
83 FR 42818 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various CommoditiesPDF
83 FR 42892 - MERP Systems, Inc.; Transfer of DataPDF
83 FR 42783 - Zinc Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
83 FR 42919 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 42878 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
83 FR 42882 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
83 FR 42881 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 42884 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42776 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 230.4 to 215, Baton Rouge, LAPDF
83 FR 42778 - Security Zone; Ohio River, Olmsted, ILPDF
83 FR 42874 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of InterestPDF
83 FR 42946 - Information Collection: NRC Form 244, “Registration Certificate-Use of Depleted Uranium Under General License”PDF
83 FR 42868 - Award Competition for Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Center in the State of AlaskaPDF
83 FR 42874 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Information Collection SystemPDF
83 FR 42936 - Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 42948 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 42789 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 SeasonPDF
83 FR 42981 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 42931 - Order of Succession for HUD Region XPDF
83 FR 42883 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42866 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018-2020 Business Research and Development SurveysPDF
83 FR 42771 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division TurbofanPDF
83 FR 42933 - Order of Succession for HUD Region IXPDF
83 FR 42929 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VIIIPDF
83 FR 42933 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VIIPDF
83 FR 42931 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VIPDF
83 FR 42930 - Order of Succession for HUD Region VPDF
83 FR 42934 - Order of Succession for HUD Region IVPDF
83 FR 42961 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42935 - Order of Succession for HUD Region IIPDF
83 FR 42805 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
83 FR 42948 - 60 Day Notice-Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42962 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42957 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42958 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42883 - Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019PDF
83 FR 42893 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 42893 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 42932 - Order of Succession for HUD Region IPDF
83 FR 42862 - Revision of the Land Management Plan for El Yunque National ForestPDF
83 FR 42945 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2 and 3, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2PDF
83 FR 42895 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42979 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
83 FR 42876 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification WorkshopsPDF
83 FR 42802 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea SubareaPDF
83 FR 42947 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 42912 - Request for Nominations for the National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and PracticePDF
83 FR 42911 - Request for Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and DentistryPDF
83 FR 42852 - Payment, Filing, and Service ProceduresPDF
83 FR 42890 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 42889 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan Requirements (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 42902 - Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 42978 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
83 FR 42978 - Minority Depository Institutions Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 42940 - Office on Violence Against WomenPDF
83 FR 42868 - Foreign-Trade Zone 78-Nashville, Tennessee; Application for Subzone; Calsonic Kansei North America; Shelbyville and Lewisburg, TennesseePDF
83 FR 42894 - Proposed Information Collection ActivityPDF
83 FR 42981 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (“CISADA”) Reporting RequirementsPDF
83 FR 42892 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 42882 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 42920 - Notice of Issuance of Program Comment To Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties Within Rail Rights-of-WayPDF
83 FR 42964 - Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public DiplomacyPDF
83 FR 42887 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 42973 - Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 42885 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests; Georgia Power CompanyPDF
83 FR 42947 - Hispanic Council on Federal EmploymentPDF
83 FR 42886 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; White Cliffs Pipeline, LLCPDF
83 FR 42888 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Garnet Wind, LLCPDF
83 FR 42884 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Yavi Energy, LLCPDF
83 FR 42889 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Pegasus Wind, LLCPDF
83 FR 42888 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 42859 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect InformationPDF
83 FR 42863 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 42943 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New CollectionPDF
83 FR 42904 - Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic ActPDF
83 FR 42896 - Notice of Decision Not To Designate Pneumocystis Pneumonia as a Tropical DiseasePDF
83 FR 42807 - Organization; Definitions; Eligibility Criteria for Outside DirectorsPDF
83 FR 42899 - Determination That PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
83 FR 42900 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397PDF
83 FR 42903 - Site Visit Training Program for Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Staff; Information Available to IndustryPDF
83 FR 42968 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning China's Compliance With WTO CommitmentsPDF
83 FR 42875 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; U.S. Fishermen Fishing in Russian WatersPDF
83 FR 42876 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42940 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical CBRN Defense ConsortiumPDF
83 FR 42938 - Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 42865 - MeetingsPDF
83 FR 42940 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of RecordsPDF
83 FR 42913 - Request for Information Regarding the 21st Century Cures Act Electronic Health Record Reporting ProgramPDF
83 FR 42864 - Notice of Proposed Changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for the Natural Resources Conservation ServicePDF
83 FR 42949 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.53, Certain Types of Orders Defined and Rule 6.53C, Complex Orders on the Hybrid SystemPDF
83 FR 42954 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Codify the Definitions of the Protocols to Enter Quotes and OrdersPDF
83 FR 42959 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors of the ExchangePDF
83 FR 42910 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; The Secretary's Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children's Public Health System Assessment Surveys OMB No. 0906-0014-RevisedPDF
83 FR 42975 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 71)PDF
83 FR 42966 - Request for Comments To Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade BarriersPDF
83 FR 42937 - Certain Fuel Pump Assemblies Having Vapor Separators and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Finding Sole Respondent in Default; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, Bonding, and the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 42866 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 42867 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 42944 - Tribal Protocol ManualPDF
83 FR 42972 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel Real Summertime; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 42980 - Privacy Act of 1974PDF
83 FR 42815 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Maurice, IAPDF
83 FR 42820 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Antiterrorism Training Requirements for Contractors (DFARS Case 2017-D034)PDF
83 FR 42788 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause “Removal of Contractor's Employees” (DFARS Case 2018-D042)PDF
83 FR 42826 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Modification of DFARS Clause “Transportation of Supplies by Sea” (DFARS Case 2018-D028)PDF
83 FR 42828 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Restrictions on Acquisitions From Foreign Sources (DFARS Case 2017-D011)PDF
83 FR 42850 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Exemption From Design-Build Selection Procedures (DFARS Case 2018-D011)PDF
83 FR 42964 - Notification of United States-Chile Environment Affairs Council and Joint Commission on Environmental Cooperation MeetingsPDF
83 FR 42822 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Sunset of Provision Relating to the Procurement of Certain Goods (DFARS Case 2018-D007)PDF
83 FR 42787 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical Interchange (DFARS Case 2017-D041)PDF
83 FR 42831 - Performance-Based Payments and Progress Payments (DFARS Case 2017-D019)PDF
83 FR 42810 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
83 FR 42812 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 42965 - Watco Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, L.L.C.PDF
83 FR 42966 - Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, L.L.C.-Acquisition Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-CSX Transportation, Inc.PDF
83 FR 42893 - Public Building Service (PBS); Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 42963 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 42963 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of ColoradoPDF
83 FR 42971 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in WashingtonPDF
83 FR 42970 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Project in ColoradoPDF
83 FR 42774 - Redelegation Concerning International Prisoner Transfer ProgramPDF
83 FR 42986 - The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light TrucksPDF

Issue

83 165 Friday, August 24, 2018 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Decreased Assessment Rate: Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, 42805-42807 2018-18363 Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42859 2018-18317 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42975-42978 2018-18291 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance, 42859-42860 2018-18417 Importation of Small Lots of Seeds Without Phytosanitary Certificates, 42860-42861 2018-18414 National Poultry Improvement Plan, 42861-42862 2018-18416 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Medical CBRN Defense Consortium, 42940 2018-18301 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Meetings, 42865-42866 2018-18299 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42883 2018-18375 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018-2020 Business Research and Development Surveys, 42866-42867 2018-18374 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42894-42896 2018-18333 2018-18351 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Maryland Advisory Committee; Correction, 42866 2018-18285 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 230.4 to 215, Baton Rouge, LA, 42776-42778 2018-18390 Security Zones: Ohio River, Olmsted, IL, 42778-42780 2018-18389 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42867 2018-18282 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Procedures for Submitting Request for Exclusions from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel, 42867-42868 2018-18281
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions, 42878-42882 2018-18392 2018-18393 2018-18394 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42882-42883 2018-18330 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Meetings: Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee, 42978 2018-18337 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause, Removal of Contractor's Employees, 42788-42789 2018-18247 Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical Interchange, 42787-42788 2018-18239 PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Antiterrorism Training Requirements for Contractors, 42820-42822 2018-18250 Exemption from Design-Build Selection Procedures, 42850-42851 2018-18243 Modification of DFARS Clause, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, 42826-42828 2018-18246 Restrictions on Acquisitions from Foreign Sources, 42828-42831 2018-18245 Sunset of Provision Relating to the Procurement of Certain Goods, 42822-42826 2018-18240 Performance-Based Payments and Progress Payments, 42831-42850 2018-18238 NOTICES Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, 42883-42884 2018-18357 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42884 2018-18391
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Tolerance Exemptions: Lignosulfonic Acid, Calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with Guanidine Hydrochloride (1:1), 42780-42783 2018-18407 Zinc Oxide, 42783-42787 2018-18402 PROPOSED RULES Pesticide Petitions: Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 42818-42819 2018-18406 The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 42986-43500 2018-16820 The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Public Hearings, 42817-42818 2018-18418 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans, 42890-42891 2018-18341 Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan Requirements, 42889-42890 2018-18340 Anacostia River Watershed: Data Solicitation in Support of Revising Total Maximum Daily Loads for Debris, Floatables, Trash, 42891-42892 2018-18410 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 42892 2018-18331 Transfer of Data: MERP Systems, Inc., 42892-42893 2018-18405 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration PROPOSED RULES Organization; Definitions: Eligibility Criteria for Outside Directors, 42807-42810 2018-18312 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pratt and Whitney Division Turbofan, 42771-42774 2018-18373 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus SAS Airplanes, 42812-42815 2018-18147 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 42810-42812 2018-18148 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Maurice, IA, 42815-42816 2018-18253 NOTICES Disposal of Aeronautical Property: McGhee Tyson Airport Alcoa, TN, 42969-42970 2018-18412 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 42887-42888 2018-18318 2018-18326 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Garnet Wind, LLC, 42888 2018-18321 Pegasus Wind, LLC, 42889 2018-18319 Yavi Energy, LLC, 42884-42885 2018-18320 License Applications: Georgia Power Co., 42885-42886 2018-18324 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: White Cliffs Pipeline, LLC, 42886-42887 2018-18322 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal Agency Actions: Proposed Highway in Washington, 42971-42972 2018-18083 Proposed Highway Project in Colorado, 42970-42971 2018-17971 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 42893 2018-18355 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 42893 2018-18356 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season, 42789-42802 2018-18382 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, 42900-42902 2018-18307 Decision Not to Designate Pneumocystis Pneumonia as a Tropical Disease, 42896-42899 2018-18313 Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 42904-42910 2018-18314 Determinations that Products Were Not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5%, 42899-42900 2018-18311 Guidance: Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development, 42902-42903 2018-18339 Requests for Proposals: Site Visit Training Program for Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Staff; Information Available to Industry, 42903-42904 2018-18305 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 42978-42980 2018-18338 2018-18350 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Application for Subzone: Calsonic Kansei North America, Foreign-Trade Zone 78, Nashville, TN, 42868 2018-18334 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Revision of the Land Management Plan: El Yunque National Forest, 42862-42863 2018-18353 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, CA; Correction, 42893-42894 2018-18117 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Requests for Information: 21st Century Cures Act Electronic Health Record Reporting Program, 42913-42919 2018-18297 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry, 42911-42912 2018-18343 National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice, 42912-42913 2018-18344
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: The Secretary's Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children's Public Health System Assessment Surveys, 42910-42911 2018-18292 Historic Historic Preservation, Advisory Council NOTICES Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way, 42920-42929 2018-18329 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Order of Succession: HUD Region I, 42932-42933 2018-18354 HUD Region II, 42935 2018-18364 HUD Region III, 42935-42936 2018-18366 HUD Region IV, 42934-42935 2018-18367 HUD Region V, 42930-42931 2018-18368 HUD Region VI, 42931-42932 2018-18369 HUD Region VII, 42933 2018-18370 HUD Region VIII, 42929-42930 2018-18371 HUD Region IX, 42933-42934 2018-18372 HUD Region X, 42931 2018-18376 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings: Art Advisory Panel, 42981 2018-18381 Privacy Act; Matching Programs, 42980-42981 2018-18268 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, 42938-42939 2018-18300 Certain Fuel Pump Assemblies Having Vapor Separators and Components Thereof, 42937-42938 2018-18286 Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 42936-42937 2018-18384 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 42937, 42939 2018-18429 2018-18431 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

RULES Redelegation Concerning International Prisoner Transfer Program, 42774-42776 2018-17949 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42943-42944 2018-18315 Charter Renewals: Task Force on Research on Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women, 42940 2018-18336 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 42940-42943 2018-18298
Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel REAL SUMMERTIME, 42972-42973 2018-18270 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42863-42864 2018-18316 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 42986-43500 2018-16820 The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Public Hearings, 42817-42818 2018-18418 NOTICES Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Availability, 42973-42975 2018-18325 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of Interest, 42874 2018-18388 National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Information Collection System, 42874-42875 2018-18385 Award Competition for Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Center in the State of Alaska, 42868-42874 2018-18386 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 42919-42920 2018-18397 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea Subarea, 42802-42804 2018-18348 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42876 2018-18302 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: U.S. Fishermen Fishing in Russian Waters, 42875-42876 2018-18303 Meetings: Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops, 42876-42878 2018-18349 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 42944 2018-18441 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Proposed Changes to National Handbook of Conservation Practices for Natural Resources Conservation Service, 42864-42865 2018-18296 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Registration Certificate—Use of Depleted Uranium Under General License, 42946-42947 2018-18387 License Amendment Application; Withdrawal Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2 and 3, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 42945-42946 2018-18352 Tribal Protocol Manual, 42944-42945 2018-18277 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Meetings: Hispanic Council on Federal Employment, 42947 2018-18323 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 42947-42948 2018-18347 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Change: Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 42948 2018-18383 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42948-42949, 42957-42959, 42961-42963 2018-18358 2018-18359 2018-18360 2018-18361 2018-18362 2018-18365 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe Exchange, Inc., 42949-42954 2018-18295 NYSE American LLC, 42959-42961 2018-18293 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 42954-42957 2018-18294 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California, 42963 2018-18091 Colorado; Administrative, 42963-42964 2018-18090 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 42964 2018-18327 United States-Chile Environment Affairs Council and Joint Commission on Environmental Cooperation, 42964-42965 2018-18242 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Payment, Filing, and Service Procedures, 42852-42858 2018-18342 NOTICES Acquisition Exemptions Containing Interchange Commitments: Decatur and Eastern Illinois Railroad, LLC; CSX Transportation, Inc., 42966 2018-18119 Continuances in Control Exemptions: Watco Holdings, Inc.; Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad, LLC, 42965-42966 2018-18125 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Public Hearings: China's Compliance with World Trade Organization Commitments, 42968-42969 2018-18304 Requests for Comment: National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, 42966-42968 2018-18287 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act Reporting Requirements, 42981 2018-18332
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Health Care Standards for Quality, 42982-42983 2018-18439 Requests for Information: Health Care Standards for Quality, 42983-42984 2018-18440 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 42986-43500 2018-16820 Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 42986-43500 2018-16820 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.

83 165 Friday, August 24, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1107; Product Identifier 2016-NE-22-AD; Amendment 39-19330; AD 2018-14-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-12-03 for certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines. AD 2017-12-03 required installing a software standard eligible for installation and precludes the use of electronic engine control (EEC) software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I. This AD requires installing a software standard eligible for installation and preclude the use of EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or SCN 27A. This AD was prompted by an unrecoverable engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) after an ice crystal icing event. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT, 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1107.

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-2017-1107; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411, June 15, 2017), (“AD 2017-12-03”). AD 2017-12-03 applied to certain PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2017 (82 FR 59557). The NPRM was prompted by an unrecoverable engine IFSD after an ice crystal icing event. The NPRM proposed to require installation of EEC software standards that became available since issuing AD 2017-12-03 for additional EEC models and preclude the use of EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or SCN 27A. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

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

Request To Clarify Installation Prohibition

PW, Delta Air Lines (Delta), FedEx Express (FedEx), and United Airlines requested clarification to paragraph (h)(2), Installation Prohibition. FedEx reasoned that paragraph (h)(2) would prohibit installation of software standard earlier than SCN 27A in all EEC models, which includes models with 24K of memory.

We agree. The intent of this AD is not to prohibit installation of software standard earlier than SCN 27A into EEC models with 24K memory. We clarified paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to identify the EECs by part number (P/N) that are prohibited from installation with software earlier than SCN 27A.

Request To Change Shop Visit

Delta and FedEx requested that we change the compliance criteria from engine shop visit to EEC shop visit in paragraphs (g)(1), (2), and (3).

We disagree. Using engine shop visit as compliance criteria provides a rate of incorporation of the improved software standard that meets the safety objectives of this AD while not putting additional burden on the operators. We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

PW requested that we modify the Costs of Compliance for engines affected by this AD from an estimated 587 engines to 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We agree. We updated the Costs of Compliance to reflect that this AD affects an estimated 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

Delta and FedEx requested that we modify the Costs of Compliance to include the labor costs for removing the EEC from the airplane and reprogramming the EEC software. FedEx reasoned that the Costs of Compliance underestimated the labor costs for reprogramming the EEC software.

We partially agree. We agree that we underestimated the time to upgrade the EEC software as older hardware requires additional steps. We disagree with including the estimated time of removing the EEC from the engine because the upgrade is occurring at an already scheduled shop visit. The Costs of Compliance includes the cost of teardown and reprogramming the EEC software. We updated the Costs of Compliance to reflect more accurately the labor cost for these actions.

Request To Change Compliance Requirements

Delta requested that the software standard upgrades, as required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, be established as part of the extended operations (ETOPS) configuration requirements. Delta reasoned that this would be more effective than the proposed AD applicability in targeting aircraft that are operating in the Asia-Pacific region where weather conditions are most prevalent for ice crystal icing. Delta also requested that the list of engine serial numbers (ESNs) referenced in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, which defines the engines with the reduced compliance deadline, be updated to reflect the current list of engines operating in the Asia-Pacific region.

We disagree. Removing the reference to specific ESNs and making the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD as part of the ETOPS configuration requirements would make this AD applicable to all ETOPS engines. Operators that operate ETOPS flights outside the Asia-Pacific region would be mandated to the earlier compliance time unnecessarily. In addition, revising the ESN list to include additional engines would cause difficulties for operators in meeting the compliance times. We will review any Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) requests submitted to cover the regional risk to any operator's specific fleet. We did not change this AD.

Request To Clarify Software Update and Older EECs Models

Delta requested that we modify the “Actions Since AD 2017-12-03 Was Issued” and “Proposed AD Requirements” paragraphs to clarify that the software upgrades this AD requires apply to older EEC models but not to older engine models. These software upgrades were not available when AD 2017-12-03 was issued.

We disagree. We did not modify the “Actions Since AD 2017-12-03 Was Issued” and “Proposed AD Requirements” paragraphs because these paragraphs are not included in this final rule. We acknowledge in the Discussion paragraph that the software upgrades in this AD apply to older EEC models. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change EEC P/N Nomenclature

Delta requested that we replace the PW P/N in paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) of this AD with the Hamilton Sundstrand (UTC Aerospace Systems) P/Ns. The Hamilton Sundstrand P/Ns are identified on the EEC data plate and are used in maintenance instructions.

We disagree. This AD applies to certain PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines and it is appropriate to use the design approval holders P/Ns for components installed on those engines. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Engine S/Ns to EEC S/Ns

FedEx requested that we modify the reference in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD from ESN to EEC S/Ns. FedEx reasoned that EECs are LRUs that can be rotated between engines. Tracking by EEC S/N would enhance engine operating reliability by ensuring that only compliant units are installed on engines operated in regions of interest.

We disagree. Since we are aware of ESNs subject to the unsafe conditions described by this AD action, we find that linking compliance to ESNs satisfies the safety objective of this AD. In addition, changing from ESNs to EEC S/Ns would cause difficulties for operators in meeting the compliance times. We did not change this AD.

Request To Extend the Compliance End Date

FedEx requested that we extend the compliance end date, of July 1, 2024, to allow additional time to comply with the AD requirements and to be consistent with the seven-year compliance time set in AD 2017-12-03.

We disagree. The requirements in this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these engines and are based on several considerations including a risk analysis. The compliance times in this AD are necessary to meet the safety objectives of this AD. We did not change this AD.

Support for the AD

The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as written.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information

We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW2000 A73-170, dated July 14, 2016, and PW ASB PW2000 A73-171, dated March 24, 2017. The ASBs describe procedures for modifying or replacing the EEC.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    EEC software installation 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 0 $340 $116,960
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411), and adding the following new AD: 2018-14-10 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-19330; Docket No. FAA-2017-1107; Product Identifier 2016-NE-22-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 28, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411, June 15, 2017).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to:

    (1) All Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines with electronic engine control (EEC), model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60, installed, with an EEC software standard earlier than SCN 5B/I; and

    (2) All PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines with EEC, model number EEC104-1, with part numbers (P/Ns) 1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985, installed, with an EEC software standard earlier than SCN 27A.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control Turbine Engines.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an unrecoverable engine in-flight shutdown after an ice crystal icing event. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the high-pressure turbine and rotor seizure. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60 and a serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before December 1, 2018, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60 and an S/N not listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

    (3) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-1 with P/N 1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 27A or replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

    ER24AU18.400 (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any software standard earlier than:

    (1) SCN 5B/I into any EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60; or

    (2) SCN 27A into any EEC model number EEC104-1 with P/N 1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985.

    (i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (k) Related Information

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

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

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 21, 2018. Karen M. Grant, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18373 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 0 [Directive No. 73A] Redelegation Concerning International Prisoner Transfer Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Current Department of Justice regulations delegate to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division certain authorities of the Attorney General concerning transfer of offenders to or from foreign countries, including the authority to find appropriate or inappropriate the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country under certain treaties. This final rule the Department of Justice's regulations to reflect that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division re-delegates this authority within the Criminal Division to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General and to the Director, the Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs. This rule reflects certain organizational changes that have been made within the Criminal Division with respect to which office is charged with the responsibility for handling prisoner transfers.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 2, 2018, and is applicable beginning August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vaughn Ary, Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005; 202-514-0000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This replacement of Directive 73 of the appendix to subpart K of part 0 is necessary due to the Criminal Division's decision to move the International Prisoner Transfer Unit from the Office of Enforcement Operations to the Office of International Affairs and to expand the number of officials authorized to find appropriate or inappropriate the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country. Under current regulations, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division has re-delegated this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General and to the Director of the Office of International Affairs. This final rule extends the re-delegation of this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General in the Criminal Division and to the Director, the Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs.

    Administrative Procedure Act—5 U.S.C. 553

    This rule is a rule of agency organization and relates to a matter relating to agency management and is therefore exempt from the requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(3)(A).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required to be prepared for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter. 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

    Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, and personnel as described in section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by the order. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This rule was drafted in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Congressional Review Act

    This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organizations and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Crime, Government employees, Law enforcement, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Prisoners.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 28, part 0, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-19.

    2. Amend the appendix to subpart K by removing Directive No. 73 and adding in its place Directive No. 73A to reads as follows: Appendix to Subpart K of Part 0 [Directive No. 73A] REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY RESPECTING TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS TO AND FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND THE DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTORS, AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR SUPERVISING THE INTERNATIONAL PRISONER TRANSFER UNIT OF THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

    By virtue of the authority vested in me by title 28, § 0.64-2, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the authority delegated to me by that section to exercise all of the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under Section 4102 of title 18, U.S. Code, which has not been delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, including specifically the authority to find the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-44 appropriate or inappropriate, is hereby re-delegated to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General for the Criminal Division and to the Director, Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs.

    Dated: August 15, 2018. Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Directive No. 73A REDELEGATION OF AUTHORITY RESPECTING TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS TO AND FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND THE DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTORS, AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR SUPERVISING THE INTERNATIONAL PRISONER TRANSFER UNIT OF THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

    By virtue of the authority vested in me by Title 28, Part 0.64-2, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the authority delegated to me by that section to exercise all of the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under Section 4102 of title 18, U.S. Code, which has not been delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, including specifically the authority to find the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-44 appropriate or inappropriate, is hereby re-delegated to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General for the Criminal Division and to the Director, Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs.

    Dated: August 15, 2018.

    Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17949 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0744] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 230.4 to 215, Baton Rouge, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 230.4 to MM 215, above Head of Passes. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential safety hazards associated with the Big River Regional 2018 Paddle Board Race. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. through noon on September 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0744 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 Lieutenant Justin Maio, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 225-298-5400, ext. 230, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by September 1, 2018, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the paddle board race and compromise public safety.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during the event because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the paddle board race.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the paddle board race occurring over a fifteen and half mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River will be a safety concern. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of life and vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7:30 a.m. through noon on September 1, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 230.4 to MM 215, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled paddle board race.

    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67, or through USCG Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge at 225-281-4789. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“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.”

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone will prohibit entry on a fifteen and a half miles stretch of the Lower Mississippi River for four and a half hours on one morning. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0744 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0744 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 230.4 to 215, Baton Rouge, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile markers (MM) 230.4 to MM 215 above Head of Passes, Baton Rouge, LA.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 07:30 a.m. through noon on September 1, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.

    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67, or through the Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge Officer of the Day at 225-281-4789.

    (3) All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

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

    Dated: August 17, 2018. Kristi M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18390 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0700] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Ohio River, Olmsted, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the navigable waters within a half mile radius of Olmsted Lock and Dam located at mile marker 964.5 on the Ohio River. The security zone is needed to protect dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature during a dignitary visit. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0700 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer, Gary Heflin, Marine Safety Unit Paducah Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 270-442-1621, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable because we must establish this security zone by August 30, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The Coast Guard received minimal notice regarding the dignitary visit, which is customary for security purposes. The Coast Guard has determined that the security zone is needed to protect the visiting dignitaries, persons, and property. Providing notice would be contrary to the public interest as it would delay establishment of the security zone until after the dignitary visit and jeopardize the safety of the dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities.

    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 because it is contrary to the public interest. Immediate action is needed to provide waterside security and protection for the dignitary visit.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a dignitary visit on August 30, 2018, will be a security concern for the dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities on the Ohio River near the Olmsted Lock and Dam. This rule is needed to protect the dignitaries, vessels, and waterfront facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature during the dignitary visit.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary security zone from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 30, 2018. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within a half mile of Olmsted Lock and Dam, located at mile marker 964.5 on the Ohio River in Olmsted, IL. The duration of the security zone is intended to cover the period of the dignitary visit. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless granted permission by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP and a designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) of the enforcement period for the temporary security zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    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 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“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.”

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the security zone. The security zone impacts a half mile radius around the Olmsted Lock and Dam for eleven hours on one afternoon. The Coast Guard will also issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary security 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 (Public Law 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 security zone lasting eleven hours that will prohibit entry within a half mile radius of the Olmsted Lock and Dam, located at mile marker 964.5 on the Ohio River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0700 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0700 Security Zone; Ohio River, Olmsted, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all navigable waters within a half mile of Olmsted Lock and Dam, located at MM 964.5 on the Ohio River, Olmstead, IL.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 6 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 30, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative via VHF-FM Channel 16 or 502-779-5422.

    (3) Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) of the enforcement period for the temporary security zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: August 17, 2018. M.B. Zamperini, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18389 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520; FRL-9979-94] Lignosulfonic Acid, Calcium, Comp. With 1,6 Hexanediamine Polymer With Guanidine Hydrochloride (1:1); Tolerance Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) number average molecular weight 4,500 to 7,000 when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Acadia Regulatory Consulting on behalf of Lidan, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 24, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 23, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 23, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0520, by one of the following methods.

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

    Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 21, 2018 (83 FR 12311) (FRL-9974-76), EPA issued a notification pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11005) filed by Acadia Regulatory Consulting, LLC (331 W King Road, Ithaca, NY 14850) on behalf of Lidan, Inc. (30 Wall Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10005). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1); CAS Reg. No. 1905409-74-6 as a stabilizer and safener in pesticide formulations. That notification included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

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

    III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is a cationic polymer or it is reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in natural aquatic environments; however, the polymer is a solid material that is not soluble or dispersible in water and will be used only in the solid phase and is not excluded from exemption by other factors.

    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria: Specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):

    The polymer's number average MW of is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer and does not contain any reactive functional groups.

    Thus, lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1).

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) is 4,500 to 7,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

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

    EPA has not found lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1).

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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

    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

    Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 16, 2018. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the following polymers to read as follows:
    § 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Lignosulfonic acid, calcium, comp. with 1,6 hexanediamine polymer with guanidine hydrochloride (1:1), minimum number average molecular weight (in amu); 4,500 daltons 1905409-74-6 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-18407 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574; FRL-9978-36] Zinc Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of zinc oxide (CAS Reg. No. 1314-13-2) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest, to include use as a stabilizer, at a concentration not to exceed 15% by weight of the pesticide formulation. Nutrenare-AG, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an amended new use for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of zinc oxide when used in accordance with the limitations of the exemption.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 24, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 23, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 23, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0574, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8408) (FRL-9972-17), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11059) by Nutri Ag, Inc. (now d/b/a Nutrenare-AG, Inc.), 4740 N Interstate 35 E, Waxahachie, TX 75165. The petition requested that the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of zinc oxide (CAS Reg. No. 1314-13-2) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 be amended to include use as a stabilizer, at a concentration not to exceed 15% by weight of the pesticide formulation. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by OMC Ag Consulting on behalf of Nutrenare-AG, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. While comments were submitted to the docket, none raised any issues related to the Agency's safety assessment of zinc oxide.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Zinc (typically in the form of zinc salts and zinc oxide) is ubiquitous in the environment, is widely distributed in plants and animals, and occurs in the earth's crust at an average concentration of approximately 70 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Zinc is also an essential nutrient in the body and a normal part of metabolism in all living organisms. Zinc is recommended for nutritional use and exists naturally in food. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers zinc oxide as generally recognized as safe for use as a nutrient in foods. See 21 CFR 182.8991.

    Zinc oxide is one of several zinc salts the Agency has evaluated in reregistration and in registration review. The Agency's current risk assessment for zinc oxide relies heavily on the Agency's previous analysis, including the 2009 risk assessment, which is entitled “Summary of Human Health Effects Data for Zinc, Zinc Salts, and Zeolites Registration Review Decision Document” and is included in the zinc salts registration review docket at http://www.regulations.gov, using document number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0011-0002.

    The 2009 zinc salts risk assessment concluded that “The Agency has reviewed all toxicity studies submitted for the zinc salts and has determined that the toxicological database is sufficient. The Agency has not selected toxicological endpoints for zinc salts. The toxicological database for the zinc salts case is currently comprised of published and unpublished studies either submitted to the Agency or obtained directly from published open literature.” That risk assessment also referenced the Agency's Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Zinc Salts of August, 1992.

    With regard to acute toxicity, the Agency's database includes information indicating that zinc oxide presents low to no acute toxicity. With regard to subchronic and chronic toxicity, the Agency has reviewed the scientific literature about zinc, which has been extensively researched as a natural component of the earth's crust and being widely distributed in plants and animals, an essential nutrient in the body and part of the metabolism of living things, and naturally occurring in foods.

    For toxicological concerns, there are adequate toxicology studies in the zinc database to evaluate incidental oral exposures. As noted in the 2009 risk assessment, at high levels, oral exposure to zinc in animal studies may result in toxic effects such as pancreatic and renal lesions as well as histological alterations in the pituitary and adrenal glands. In general, the levels of zinc causing these toxicological effects occur at much higher dose levels than the level recommended for nutritional use and that is naturally available in food. The 2009 risk assessment noted that zinc compounds have not been classified as cancerous compounds.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    As noted in the previous section, the 2009 risk assessment did not identify any toxicological endpoints of concern because of the ubiquity of zinc in the environment and presence in food, its role as an essential element, and FDA's consideration of zinc as GRAS for use as a nutrient in food. That assessment concluded that the toxicological effects seen in the database indicated effects at much higher levels than the level recommended for nutritional use and what is naturally found in food. To supplement those conclusions, the Agency considered the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board; the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies; and the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF).

    The NAS, EFSA, and SCF have considered zinc in its role as an essential nutrient. These organizations have established upper limit intake levels for zinc. The NAS upper limit intake level for zinc is referred to as the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) and is defined as the highest level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects for almost all individuals. The NAS UL for zinc is 40 mg/day for adults. The EFSA and SCF Tolerable Upper Intake Level for zinc is 25 mg/day for adults. Both of these values are based on adverse effects associated with chronic intake of supplemental zinc, particularly those attributable to copper deficiency, with these adverse effects observed at zinc exposure levels in humans above 60 mg/day.

    The NAS Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for zinc is based upon replacement of endogenous zinc loss in the body via normal metabolic processes and is established at 8 mg/day for women and 11 mg/day for men. (The EFSA Dietary Reference Values and the SCF Population Reference Intake are consistent with the NAS RDA, ranging from 7 mg/day to 12 mg/day for adults.) NAS also noted that the median intake of zinc from food in the United States was approximately 9 mg/day for women and 14 mg/day for men. The estimated worst-case dietary exposures to zinc from the use of zinc oxide as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest is 2 mg/day, a value significantly less than both the RDA and UL for zinc.

    Because the Agency does not anticipate aggregate exposures to zinc oxide to approach the UL, it has not selected toxicological endpoints for zinc oxide for use in a quantitative risk assessment.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure. In evaluating dietary exposure to zinc oxide, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA qualitatively assessed dietary exposures from zinc oxide in food as follows:

    Dietary exposure to zinc oxide can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops, animals or food contact surfaces. In addition, dietary exposure is expected from the presence of zinc oxide naturally occurring in foods and from use as a nutrient. Based on the insoluble nature of zinc oxide, use on food crops would not be expected to result in residues of zinc oxide in drinking water, although zinc may be present naturally in water at low concentrations.

    2. Non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    Zinc oxide may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the discussion above, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for zinc oxide was not conducted.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Exposures resulting from the use of zinc oxide as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest and the dietary exposure (expressed as median intake) of zinc from food, would be significantly less than the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels for zinc. Therefore, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of zinc oxide will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to zinc oxide residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation. EPA is establishing limitations on the amount of zinc oxide that may be used as a stabilizer in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. These limitations will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest for sale or distribution containing zinc oxide as a stabilizer that exceeds 15% by weight of zinc oxide.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of zinc oxide when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 is amended to include use as a stabilizer, at a concentration not to exceed 15% by weight of the pesticide formulation.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 16, 2018. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.910, revise the zinc oxide entry in the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Zinc oxide (CAS Reg. No. 1314-13-2) Not more than 15% by weight in pesticide formulations when used as stabilizer Coating agent, stabilizer. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-18402 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 231 [Docket DARS-2017-0013] RIN 0750-AJ51 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of Independent Research and Development Technical Interchange (DFARS Case 2017-D041) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a requirement for major contractors to have a technical interchange with the Government prior to generating independent research and development costs.

    DATES:

    Effective August 24, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    DoD is amending the DFARS to remove the text at DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(4), which requires major contractors to engage in and document a technical interchange with the Government, prior to generating independent research and development (IR&D) costs for IR&D projects initiated in fiscal year 2017 and later, in order for those costs to be determined allowable.

    The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 35741 on August 1, 2017. No public comments were received on this DFARS requirement in response to the notice. Subsequently, the DoD Task Force reviewed the requirements of DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(4) and determined that the DFARS coverage was outmoded and recommended removal, since requiring a technical interchange between the Government and major contractors is unnecessary. The objective of the interchange can be met through other means.

    II. Applicability to Contracts At or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule only removes an unneeded requirement in the DFARS that required a technical interchange between the Government and certain contractors. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.

    III. Expected Cost Savings

    Effective November 4, 2016, DFARS 231.205-18(c)(iii)(C)(4) was revised to require contractors to engage in a technical interchange with the Government, prior to the generation of IR&D costs for IR&D projects initiated in fiscal year 2017 and later, in order for those costs to be allowable. This requirement causes the contractor to expend time preparing for a discussion, contacting appropriate Government personnel, and discussing the IR&D project. Since contractors commonly pool all of their IR&D project costs to develop a single billing rate, this requirement would necessitate contractors having to discuss all of the IR&D projects contained in their billing rate. While some contractors may have a single project, many have close to 100 or more, which could be significantly burdensome.

    This requirement applies to major contractors seeking to include IR&D costs as part of their reimbursable costs under a contract. Major contractors are defined as those whose covered segments allocated a total of more than $11 million in IR&D and bid and proposal costs to covered contracts during the preceding fiscal year; therefore, small entities are not expected to meet the definition of a major contractor or to be impacted. IR&D costs are most commonly included in noncommercial, cost-type contracts that are subject to certified cost and pricing data and cost accounting standards. This rule removes the requirement for major contractors to have a technical interchange with the Government prior to generating IR&D costs. Removal of this requirement will result in freeing contractors to pursue IR&D projects without including the Government in those preliminary decisions.

    DoD has performed a regulatory cost analysis on this rule. The following is a summary of the estimated public annualized cost savings, calculated in 2016 dollars at a 7-percent discount rate in perpetuity:

    Annualized 7% −$1.7 million Present Value 7% −$24.0 million

    To access the full Regulatory Cost Analysis for this rule, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, search for “DFARS Case 2017-D041,” click “Open Docket,” and view “Supporting Documents.”

    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

    This final rule is considered to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings can be found in section III. of this preamble.

    VI. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute

    The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at Title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and 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 DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete requirement from the DFARS.

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section V of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0483, entitled “Independent Research and Development Technical Descriptions.” Repeal of this rule does not impact the IR&D reporting that continues to be required annually, when the IR&D project is completed, under OMB Control Number 0704-0483.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 231

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is amended as follows:

    PART 231—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 231 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 chapter 1.

    231.205-18 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 231.205-18 by: a. Adding “and” to the end of paragraph (c)(iii)(C)(2); b. Removing “; and” from the end of paragraph (c)(iii)(C)(3) and adding a period in its place; and c. Removing paragraph (c)(iii)(C)(4).
    [FR Doc. 2018-18239 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 247 and 252 [Docket DARS-2018-0041] RIN 0750-AK04 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause “Removal of Contractor's Employees” (DFARS Case 2018-D042) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a clause that is no longer necessary.

    DATES:

    Effective August 24, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    DoD is amending the DFARS to remove the DFARS clause 252.247-7006, Removal of Contractor's Employees, and the associated clause prescription at DFARS 247.270-4. The DFARS clause served as an agreement from the contractor to only use experienced, responsible, and capable people to perform the work under the stevedoring contract. The clause also advised the contractor that the contracting officer may require the contractor to remove from the job, employees who endanger persons or property or whose employment is inconsistent with the interest of military security.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    The information conveyed in DFARS clause 252.247-7006 is directly related to performance of the work under a stevedoring contract. It is more appropriate to define what the Government considers an experienced, responsible, and capable employee to be in a performance work statement, not a contract clause, because those requirements may change depending on various factors of the work being performed. If the need to remove employees from performing under the contract exists, it should be identified in the performance work statement. The removal and replacement of employees directly relates to the contractor's ability to perform and staff the work under the contract. As such, this DFARS clause is unnecessary and can be removed.

    The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 35741 on August 1, 2017, and requested public input. One public comment was received on this clause. The comment recommended elimination of the clause, as it is unnecessary. Subsequently, the DoD Task Force reviewed the requirements of DFARS clause 252.247-7006, Removal of Contractor's Employees, and determined that the DFARS coverage was unnecessary and recommended removal.

    III. Applicability to Contracts At or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule only removes obsolete DFARS clause 252.247-7006, Removal of Contractor's Employees. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b). This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    V. Executive Order 13771

    This rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VI. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute

    The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and 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 DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete requirement from the DFARS.

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section VI. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the 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 Parts 247 and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 247 and 252 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 247 and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 247—TRANSPORTATION
    247.270-4 [Amended]
    1. Amend section 247.270-4 by— a. Removing paragraph (f); and b. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (f). PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    252.247-7006 [Removed and Reserved]
    2. Remove and reserve section 252.247-7006.
    252.247-7007 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 252.247-7007, in the introductory text, by removing “247.270-4(g)” and adding “247.270-(f)” in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18247 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-ep-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1231099BPP0] RIN 1018-BB73 Migratory Bird Hunting; Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule prescribes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands. This rule responds to tribal requests for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) recognition of their authority to regulate hunting under established guidelines. This rule allows the establishment of season bag limits and, thus, harvest at levels compatible with populations and habitat conditions.

    DATES:

    This rule takes effect on August 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may inspect comments received on the special hunting regulations and Tribal proposals during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Headquarters, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803, or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, having due regard for the zones of temperature and for the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory game birds, to determine when, to what extent, and by what means such birds or any part, nest, or egg thereof may be taken, hunted, captured, killed, possessed, sold, purchased, shipped, carried, exported, or transported.

    In the May 23, 2018, Federal Register (83 FR 23869), we proposed special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2018-19 hunting season for certain Indian tribes, under the guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 23467). The guidelines respond to tribal requests for Service recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers on their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:

    (1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);

    (2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and

    (3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.

    In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10-September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada.

    In the August 3, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 36308), we requested that tribes desiring special hunting regulations in the 2018-19 hunting season submit a proposal including details on:

    (1) Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;

    (2) Methods that would be employed to measure or monitor harvest (such as bag checks, mail questionnaires, etc.);

    (3) Steps that would be taken to limit level of harvest, where it could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would adversely impact the migratory bird resource; and

    (4) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird hunting regulations.

    No action is required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which an Indian reservation is located. We have successfully used the guidelines since the 1985-86 hunting season. We finalized the guidelines beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (August 18, 1988, Federal Register [53 FR 31612]).

    The final rule described here is the final in the series of proposed and final rulemaking documents for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season. This rule sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for migratory game bird species on reservations and ceded territories. This final rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process for the Tribal migratory game bird hunting seasons, which started with the August 3, 2017, proposed rule. This final rule sets the Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season.

    Population Status and Harvest

    Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our website at https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications/population-status.php. We used the following reports: Adaptive Harvest Management, 2018 Hunting Season (September 2017); American Woodcock Population Status, 2017 (August 2017); Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status, 2017 (August 2017); Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons (August 2017); Mourning Dove Population Status, 2017 (August 2017); Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations, 2017 (August 2017); and Waterfowl Population Status, 2017 (August 2017).

    Comments and Issues Concerning Tribal Proposals

    For the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season, we proposed regulations for 30 Tribes or Indian groups that followed the 1985 guidelines and were considered appropriate for final rulemaking. However, at that time, we noted in the May 23 proposed rule that we were proposing seasons for six Tribes who have submitted proposals in past years but from whom we had not yet received proposals this year. We did not receive proposals from three of those Tribes and, therefore, have not included them in this final rule.

    The comment period for the May 23 proposed rule closed on June 22, 2018. We received five comments on our May 23 proposed rule, which announced proposed seasons for migratory bird hunting by American Indian Tribes. Significant comments are addressed below.

    Written Comments: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) reiterated their past comments of being strongly opposed to allowing the use of electronic calls, hand nets, and snares on ceded lands (see February 5, 2018, Federal Register (83 FR 5037) for additional details). They stated that if approved, they should only be allowed on tribal lands, not State public lands, where the possibility of potential conflicts exists.

    The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) supported the proposed regulations and urged the timely approval and publishing of a final rule prior to the scheduled September 1, 2018, opening of the seasons.

    Several individuals also provided comment. One commenter protested the entire migratory bird hunting regulations process and the killing of all migratory birds. Another commenter believed we should approve the proposed special migratory bird hunting Tribal seasons, while another believed we needed to publish the final tribal regulations prior to the season opening of September 1, 2018, unlike the previous year.

    Service Response: In the February 5, 2018, Federal Register (83 FR 5037), we responded in detail to WDNR's comments regarding our approval of the GLIFWC's proposal. However, as an aid to the reader, we again summarize and respond here.

    Allowing electronic calls. In the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, GLIFWC proposes allowing an experimental application of electronic calls with up to 50 Tribal hunters allowed to use the devices. Individuals using electronic calls will be required to obtain a special Tribal permit, complete a hunt diary for each hunt where the devices are used, and submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain a permit for the following year. GLIFWC will require hunters to record the date, time, and location of each hunt; the number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters; and other information GLIFWC deems appropriate. GLIFWC will then summarize the diary results and submit a report to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, GLIFWC proposes that this experimental application be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    As we have stated over the last 7 years (76 FR 54676, September 1, 2011; 77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012; 78 FR 53218, August 28, 2013; 79 FR 52226, September 3, 2014; 80 FR 52663, September 1, 2015; 81 FR 62404, September 9, 2016; 83 FR 5037, February 5, 2018), the issue of allowing electronic calls and other electronic devices for migratory game bird hunting has been highly debated and highly controversial over the last 40 years, similar to other prohibited hunting methods. Electronic calls, i.e., the use or aid of recorded or electronic amplified bird calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of bird calls or sounds to lure or attract migratory game birds to hunters, were Federally prohibited in 1957, because of their effectiveness in attracting and aiding the harvest of ducks and geese and because they are generally not considered a legitimate component of hunting (see restriction in 50 CFR 20.21(g)).

    In our previous responses on this issue, we have also discussed information stemming from the use of electronic calls during the special light-goose seasons and our conclusions as to its applicability to most other waterfowl species. Given available evidence on the effectiveness of electronic calls, we continue to be concerned about the large biological uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls. Additionally, given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this rule would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we remain concerned that the use of electronic calls to take waterfowl could lead to confusion on the part of the public, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials in implementing the requirements of 50 CFR part 20. Further, similar to the impacts of baiting, we have some concerns on the uncertain zone of influence range from the use of electronic calls, which could potentially increase harvest from non-tribal hunters operating within areas where electronic calls are used during the dates of the general hunt. However, unlike baiting, once the electronic call is removed from an area, the attractant or lure is immediately removed with presumably little to no lingering effects.

    Notwithstanding our above concerns, we understand and appreciate GLIFWC's position on this issue; their desire to increase tribal hunter opportunity, harvest, and participation; and the importance that GLIFWC has ascribed to these issues. GLIFWC has proposed a limited use of electronic calls under an experimental design with up to only 50 Tribal hunters wherein hunters would be required to obtain special permits and complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Further, given GLIFWC's extremely limited current and expected waterfowl harvest (fewer than 3,000 ducks and 600 geese) and hunter participation (limited to 50 hunters), our concerns for any potential biological impacts are significantly lessened. Therefore, we agree with the tribes that much of the large uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls could be potentially controlled, or significantly lessened, by this very modest experiment.

    Thus, we are approving GLIFWC's limited experimental approach with the hope of gaining additional information and knowledge about the use of electronic calls and their effects on waterfowl. Ideally, this limited approach includes utilizing electronic calls both for Canada geese (where they may already be used in some instances) and new efforts for ducks. Important data related to tribal hunter interest, participation, effects on targeted species, and harvest needs are to be closely tracked and reported, as GLIFWC has agreed. We conclude that the experimental removal of the electronic call prohibition, with the proposed limited design, is consistent with helping address and answer some of our long-standing concerns, and thus we approve GLIFWC's proposal to allow the experimental use of electronic calls in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas for any open season for a 3-year experimental period.

    Use of hand-held nets and snares. GLIFWC proposed that we allow tribal members to take migratory birds (primarily waterfowl) with the use of hand-held nets, hand-held snares, and the capturing of birds by hand in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. GLIFWC's proposal for the use of nets and snares and capturing by hand would include the take of birds at night. Non-attended nets or snares would not be authorized under this proposal. Tribal members using nets or snares to take migratory birds, or taking birds by hand, would be required to obtain a special Tribal permit, complete a hunt diary for each hunt where these methods are used, and submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain a permit to net migratory birds for the following year. GLIFWC-required information would include the date, time, and location of the hunt; number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; and other information GLIFWC deems appropriate. Diary results would then be summarized and documented in a GLIFWC report, which would be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, GLIFWC proposes that this experimental application be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    Current regulations at 50 CFR part 20 do not allow the use of traps, nets, or snares to capture migratory game birds (see § 20.21(a)), and we are unaware of any current State regulations allowing the use of traps for the capture of resident game birds. While the use of traps or nets for birds is not generally considered a sport-hunting technique, we recognize that their use may be a customary and traditional hunting method by tribal members. Further, GLIFWC's netting and trapping proposal does not allow baiting (which could lead to concerns related to potential disease transmission) or the herding of waterfowl into traps when they are largely flightless, such as during the summer molt. Practices such as these would significantly increase our concerns. As such, and recognizing the importance GLIFWC has placed on this issue, we are not opposed to the trapping of migratory birds, especially given all the GLIFWC-proposed restrictions on their use and the fact that they will be monitored at all times. Thus, we agree with the GLIFWC proposal and conclude that the restrictions they have proposed are appropriate to begin a 3-year experimental evaluation.

    Use of hunter diaries. For both use of electronic calls and hand-nets and snares, GLIFWC has proposed that hunters be required to complete and submit a hunt diary in order to receive a special hunting permit the following year. Despite commenters stating that these tribal self-reporting requirements have not been productive in the past, this methodology, with GLIFWC's commitment, will provide us with useful information to help assess the program's effectiveness, user conflicts, hunter participation, and harvest. Given the relatively small size of the program and the anticipated participation and harvest, we see little need for GLIFWC staff to conduct field observations as States or Flyways (with thousands of hunters and potentially tens of thousands in anticipated harvest) have done for other experimental seasons. However, if we see that either the quality of information being yielded is not sufficient for our purposes or the level of impacts is more than anticipated and may warrant field observers and/or a more rigorous study approach, we will work with GLIFWC to address these issues.

    Limiting activities to Tribal lands. WDNR requested that any of GLIWFC's proposals, if approved, be limited to Tribal lands only, or be prohibited on all State lands. They state that allowing the use of electronic calls, hand-held nets, and snares on all ceded lands increases the potential for conflicts with the general hunting public and creates a challenge for law enforcement. While we acknowledge that the potential for conflict exists, limiting GLIFWC's proposals to either Tribal lands only or non-State lands would severely limit GLIFWC's available hunting options. Some member tribes have relatively small reservations. State and County lands are a large and important component of ceded lands. Further, other hunting rights are exercised on ceded lands, along with methods and means not available to the general hunting public. Given the above and the very limited nature of the proposed experiment, we see no justification for restricting these hunting methods and means to either Tribal lands or non-State lands.

    Individual, more generalized comments. Our long-term objectives continue to include providing opportunities to harvest portions of certain migratory game bird populations and to limit harvests to levels compatible with each population's ability to maintain healthy, viable numbers. Further, there exists a long history of establishing hunting seasons for migratory game bird species such as waterfowl, cranes, woodcock, doves, and migratory shore and upland game birds. Tribes, such as those included in this final rule, have hunted these species before and since the inception of our establishment of migratory game bird hunting seasons. These seasons are culturally important to them, and applicable treaties allow for hunting of these species.

    Having taken into account the zones of temperature and the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory game birds, we conclude that the hunting seasons provided for herein are compatible with the current status of migratory bird populations and long-term population goals. Additionally, we are obligated to, and do, give serious consideration to all information received as public comment. We continue to conclude that the current Flyway-Council system of migratory bird management is one of the most longstanding, successful examples of State-Federal cooperative management since its establishment in 1952. Likewise, the establishment of special tribal migratory bird hunting regulations has been a successful Federal-Tribal partnership since 1988. However, as always, we continue to seek new ways to improve the process.

    Required Determinations Executive Order 13771—Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this final rule establishes annual harvest limits related to routine hunting or fishing.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration

    The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2018-19,” with its corresponding May 2018, finding of no significant impact. The programmatic document, as well as the separate environmental assessment, is available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.php or from the person indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat. * * *.” Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Our biological opinions resulting from this section 7 consultation are public documents available for public inspection at the address indicated under ADDRESSES.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.

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

    An economic analysis was prepared for the 2018-19 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion under Regulatory Flexibility Act, below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2017-18 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2017-18 season. For the 2018-19 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $334-$440 million with a mid-point estimate of $387 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13, the 2013-14, the 2014-15, the 2015-16, the 2016-17, and the 2017-18 seasons. The 2018-19 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, 2013, and 2018. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2018 Analysis was based on the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.5 billion at small businesses in 2018. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or from http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB control numbers:

    • 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 6/30/2021).

    • 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 8/31/2020). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

    • 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20” (expires 06/30/2021).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

    Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule will allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.

    Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. We have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.

    Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    Regulations Promulgation

    The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we concluded were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for public involvement. We also provided notification of our participation in multiple Flyway Council meetings, opportunities for additional public review and comment on all Flyway Council proposals for regulatory change, and opportunities for additional public review during the Service Regulations Committee meeting. Therefore, sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons regarding the migratory bird hunting frameworks for the 2018-19 hunting seasons. Further, after establishment of the final frameworks, States and Tribes need sufficient time to conduct their own public processes to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. Thus, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States and Tribes might not be able to meet their own administrative needs and requirements.

    For the reasons cited above, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these frameworks will take effect immediately upon publication.

    Accordingly, with each participating Tribe having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its reservation or ceded territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    Accordingly, part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 20—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING 1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.

    (Note: The following hunting regulations provided for by 50 CFR 20.110 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations because of their seasonal nature).
    2. Section 20.110 is revised to read as follows:
    § 20.110 Seasons, limits, and other regulations for certain Federal Indian reservations, Indian Territory, and ceded lands.

    Unless specifically provided for below, all of the regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply to the seasons listed herein.

    (a) Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Flathead Indian Reservation, Pablo, Montana (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters).

    Tribal Members Only Ducks (Including Mergansers)

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: The Tribe does not have specific bag and possession restrictions for Tribal members. The season on harlequin duck is closed.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Same as ducks.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Same as ducks.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Same as ducks.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Same as ducks.

    Nontribal Hunters Ducks (Including Mergansers)

    Season Dates: Open September 22, 2018, through January 7, 2019.

    Scaup

    Season Dates: Open September 22 through December 17, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, two pintail, three scaup (when open), two canvasback, and two redheads. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Same as ducks.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 and 25, respectively.

    Geese Dark Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 22, 2018, through January 7, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 4 and 12, respectively.

    Light Geese

    Season Dates: Same as for dark geese.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 20 and 60, respectively.

    General Conditions: Tribal and nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 regarding manner of taking. In addition, shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset, and each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) signed in ink across the stamp face. Special regulations established by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes also apply on the reservation.

    (b) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Cloquet, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 8 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 18 ducks, including no more than 12 mallards (only 3 of which may be hens), 9 black ducks, 9 scaup, 9 wood ducks, 9 redheads, 9 pintails, and 9 canvasbacks.

    Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 12 ducks, including no more than 8 mallards (only 2 of which may be hens), 6 black ducks, 6 scaup, 6 redheads, 6 pintails, 6 wood ducks, and 6 canvasbacks.

    Mergansers 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 8 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15 mergansers, including no more than 6 hooded mergansers.

    Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 mergansers, including no more than 4 hooded mergansers.

    Canada Geese 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories:

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 geese.

    Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 geese.

    Coots and Common Moorhens (Common Gallinules) 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 8 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens, singly or in the aggregate.

    Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens, singly or in the aggregate.

    Sandhill Cranes: 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Two sandhill cranes. Crane carcass tags are required prior to hunting.

    Sora and Virginia Rails All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 sora and Virginia rails, singly or in the aggregate.

    Common Snipe All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Eight common snipe.

    Woodcock All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Three woodcock.

    Mourning Doves All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 30 mourning doves.

    General Conditions

    1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License.

    2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.

    3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting.

    4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas.

    5. There are no possession limits for migratory birds. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.

    (c) Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Suttons Bay, Michigan (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 20, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 35 ducks, which may include no more than 8 pintail, 4 canvasback, 8 black ducks, 5 hooded merganser, 8 wood ducks, 8 redheads, and 20 mallards (only 10 of which may be hens).

    Canada and Snow Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 15, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15 geese.

    Other Geese (White-Fronted Geese and Brant)

    Season Dates: Open September 20 through December 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Five geese.

    Sora Rails, Common Snipe, and Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 14, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 rails, 10 snipe, and 5 woodcock.

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 14, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 mourning doves.

    Sandhill Crane

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 14, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 2 sandhill crane, with a season limit of 10.

    General Conditions: A valid Grand Traverse Band Tribal license is required and must be in possession before taking any wildlife. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other basic regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 are valid. Other tribal regulations apply, and may be obtained at the tribal office in Suttons Bay, Michigan.

    (d) Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only).

    The 2018-19 waterfowl hunting season regulations apply to all treaty areas (except where noted):

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 50 ducks in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Area; 30 ducks in the 1836 Treaty Area.

    Mergansers

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 mergansers.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018. In addition, any portion of the ceded territory that is open to State-licensed hunters for goose hunting outside of these dates will also be open concurrently for tribal members.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 geese in aggregate.

    Other Migratory Birds: Coots and Common Moorhens (Common Gallinules)

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens (common gallinules), singly or in the aggregate.

    Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 20, singly, or in the aggregate, 25.

    Common Snipe

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 16 common snipe.

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Begin September 4 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 woodcock.

    Mourning Dove: 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories Only

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 29, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15 mourning doves.

    Sandhill Cranes

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 2 cranes in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Area and no season bag limit; 1 crane with a season bag limit of 3 in the 1836 Treaty Area.

    Swans: 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories Only

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag/Season Limit: 2 swans. All harvested swans must be registered by presenting the fully-feathered carcass to a tribal registration station or GLIFWC warden, to be identified to species. If the total number of trumpeter swans harvested reaches 10, the swan season will be closed by emergency tribal rule.

    General Conditions

    A. All tribal members are required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.

    B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members are required to comply with tribal codes that are no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin (Voigt) and Mille Lacs Band v. State of Minnesota cases. Chapter 10 in each of these model codes regulates ceded territory migratory bird hunting. Both versions of Chapter 10 parallel Federal requirements as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting. They also automatically incorporate by reference the Federal migratory bird regulations.

    C. Particular regulations of note include:

    1. Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.

    2. Tribal members in each zone must comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.

    3. There are no possession limits, with the exception of 2 swans (in the aggregate) and 25 rails (in the aggregate). For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded lands are considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as taken on reservation lands. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands do not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.

    4. There are no shell limit restrictions.

    5. Hunting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset, except that, within the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories hunters may use non-mechanical nets or snares that are operated by hand to take those birds subject to an open hunting season at any time. Hunters shall be permitted to capture, without the aid of other devices (i.e., by hand) and immediately kill birds subject to an open season, regardless of time of day. See #7 below for further explanation.

    6. An experimental application of electronic calls (e-calls) will be implemented in the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories. Up to 50 tribal hunters will be allowed to use e-calls. Individuals using e-calls will be required to obtain a special permit; they will be required to complete a hunt diary for each hunt where e-calls are used; and they will be required to submit the hunt diary to the Commission within two (2) weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain an e-call permit for the following year. Required information will include the date, time and location of the hunt, number of hunters, the number of each species harvested per hunting event, if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters, and other information deemed appropriate. Diary results will be summarized and documented in a Commission report, which will be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, this experimental application would be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    7. Within the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories, tribal members will be allowed to use non-mechanical, hand-operated nets (i.e., throw/cast nets or hand-held nets typically used to land fish) and/or hand-operated snares, and may chase and capture migratory birds without the aid of hunting devices (i.e., by hand). At this time, non-attended nets or snares shall not be authorized under this regulation. Tribal members using nets or snares to take migratory birds, or taking birds by hand, will be required to obtain a special permit; they will be required to complete a hunt diary for each hunt where these methods are used; and they will be required to submit the hunt diary to the Commission within two (2) weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain a permit to net migratory birds for the following year. Required information will include the date, time and location of the hunt, number of hunters, the number of each species harvested per hunting event, and other information deemed appropriate. Diary results will be summarized and documented in a Commission report, which will be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, this experimental application would be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    (e) Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Indian Reservation, Dulce, New Mexico (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters).

    Ducks (Including Mergansers)

    Season Dates: Open October 6 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: The daily bag limit is seven, including no more than two hen mallards, two pintail, two redheads, two canvasback, and three scaup. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 6 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four, respectively.

    General Conditions: Tribal and nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 regarding shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) signed in ink across the stamp face. Special regulations established by the Jicarilla Tribe also apply on the reservation.

    (f) Kalispel Tribe, Kalispel Reservation, Usk, Washington (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters).

    Nontribal Hunters on Reservation and Ceded Lands Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through September 16, 2018; open September 22 through September 23, 2018; and open October 1, 2018, through January 8, 2019. During these periods, days to be hunted are specified by the Kalispel Tribe. Nontribal hunters should contact the Tribe for more detail on hunting days.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 5 Canada geese for the early season, and 6 light geese and 4 dark geese, for the late season. The daily bag limit is 2 brant (when the State's season is open) and is in addition to dark goose limits for the late-season. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 15, 2018, through September 16, 2018; open September 22, through September 23, 2018; and open October 1, 2018, through January 8, 2019.

    Scaup

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through December 25, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 7 ducks, including no more than 2 female mallards, 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 3 scaup (when open), and 2 redheads. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    General: Tribal members must possess a validated Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a tribal ceded lands permit.

    (g) Klamath Tribe, Chiloquin, Oregon (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks and Coots

    Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 9 and 18, respectively.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 9 and 18, respectively.

    General: Nontoxic shot is required. Use of live decoys, bait, and commercial use of migratory birds are prohibited. Waterfowl may not be pursued or taken while using motorized craft. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.

    (h) Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Cass Lake, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10 ducks, including no more than 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, and 5 black ducks.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10 geese.

    General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontoxic shot is required. Use of live decoys, bait, and commercial use of migratory birds are prohibited. Waterfowl may not be pursued or taken while using motorized craft.

    (i) Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Manistee, Michigan (Tribal Members Only).

    1836 Ceded Territory and Tribal Reservation Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 27, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 12 ducks, including no more than 6 mallards (2 of which may be hens), 3 black ducks, 3 redheads, 3 wood ducks, 2 pintail, 1 bufflehead, 1 hooded merganser, and 2 canvasback.

    Coots and Gallinules

    Season Dates: Open September 14, 2018, through January 27, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: Five coot and five gallinule.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 3, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: Five.

    White-Fronted Geese, Brant, and Snow Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 7 through December 9, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Five.

    Woodcock, Mourning Doves, Snipe, and Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 11, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 5 woodcock and 10 each of the other species.

    General Conditions Are as Follows

    A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2018-19 hunting license.

    B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. Shooting hours will be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

    C. Particular regulations of note include:

    (1) Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.

    (2) Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.

    D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.

    E. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits.

    (j) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Petoskey, Michigan (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 20 ducks, including no more than 5 hen mallards, 5 black ducks, 5 redheads, 5 wood ducks, 5 pintail, 5 scaup, and 5 canvasback.

    Mergansers

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10 mergansers, including no more than 5 hooded mergansers.

    Coots and Gallinules

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 8, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 in the aggregate.

    Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15.

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 14, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15.

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 1, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10.

    Sandhill Cranes

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 1, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: One.

    General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits.

    (k) Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Reservation, Lower Brule, South Dakota (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters).

    Tribal Members Ducks, Mergansers, and Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Six ducks, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redheads, two canvasback, three wood ducks, three scaup, two bonus teal during October 6 through 21, 2018, and one mottled duck Coot daily bag limit is 15. Merganser daily bag limit is five, including no more than two hooded mergansers. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 6 and 18, respectively.

    White-Fronted Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and six, respectively.

    Light Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20.

    Nontribal Hunters Ducks (Including Mergansers and Coots)

    Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Six ducks, including five mallards (no more of which can be two hen mallard), three scaup, two canvasback, two redheads, three wood ducks, one mottled duck, one pintail, and two bonus blue-winged teal during October 7, through October 22, 2018. Coot daily bag limit is 15. Merganser daily bag limit is five, including no more than two hooded mergansers. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 27, 2018, through February 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 6 and 18, respectively.

    White-Fronted Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 27, 2018, through January 22, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and six, respectively.

    Light Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 27, 2018, through February 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 50 and no possession limit.

    General Conditions: All hunters must comply with the basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20, including the use of steel shot and shooting hours. Nontribal hunters must possess a validated Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has an official Conservation Code that hunters must adhere to when hunting in areas subject to control by the Tribe.

    (l) [Reserved]

    (m) Makah Indian Tribe, Neah Bay, Washington (Tribal Members).

    Band-Tailed Pigeons

    Season Dates: Open September 22 through October 21, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Two band-tailed pigeons.

    Ducks and Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 22, 2018, through January 27, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: Seven ducks including no more than five mallards (only two of which can be a hen), one redhead, one pintail, three scaup, and one canvasback. The seasons on wood duck and harlequin are closed. The coot daily bag limit is 25.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 22, 2018, through January 27, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: Four, including no more than one brant. The seasons on Aleutian and dusky Canada geese are closed.

    General Conditions

    All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply. The following restrictions also apply:

    1. As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 300 feet of an occupied area.

    2. Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl.

    3. The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited.

    4. Only Service approved nontoxic shot is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited.

    5. The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl.

    6. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

    7. Open hunting areas are: Makah Reservation except for designated wilderness areas and within one mile of the Cape Flattery and Shi-shi Trails. Off-Reservation Hunting Areas as specified in the General Hunting Regulations.

    (n) Navajo Nation, Navajo Indian Reservation, Window Rock, Arizona (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters).

    Band-Tailed Pigeons

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through September 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 5 and 10 pigeons, respectively.

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through September 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

    Ducks (Including Mergansers and Coots)

    Season Dates: Open September 22, 2018, through January 7, 2019.

    Scaup

    Season Dates: Open September 22 through December 17, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one mottled duck, two canvasback, three scaup (when open), two redheads, and one pintail. Coot daily bag limit is 25. Merganser daily bag limit is seven. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 22, 2018, through January 7, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 4 and 12, respectively.

    General Conditions: Tribal and nontribal hunters will comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20, regarding shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or over must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) signed in ink across the face. Special regulations established by the Navajo Nation also apply on the reservation.

    (o) Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks (Including Mergansers)

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through December 2, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Six, including no more than six mallards (three hen mallards), six wood ducks, one redhead, two pintail, and one hooded merganser. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 5 Canada geese with a possession limit of 10. A seasonal quota of 500 birds is adopted. If the quota is reached before the season concludes, the season will be closed at that time.

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 4, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four woodcock, respectively.

    Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 4, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

    General Conditions: Tribal member shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to 15 minutes after sunset. Nontribal members hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must comply with all State of Wisconsin regulations, including season dates, shooting hours, and bag limits, which differ from tribal member seasons. Tribal members and nontribal members hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, with the following exceptions: Tribal members are exempt from the purchase of the Migratory Waterfowl Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp); and shotgun capacity is not limited to three shells.

    (p) Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than one harlequin duck per season.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 9, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four geese, and may include no more than three light geese. The season on dusky Canada geese is closed. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open January 10 through January 25, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four, respectively.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 13, 2018, through February 1, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 and 50 coots, respectively.

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 13, 2018, through January 18, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 13, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 16 snipe, respectively.

    Band-Tailed Pigeons

    Season Dates: Open September 13, 2018, through January 18, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four pigeons, respectively.

    Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than one harlequin duck per season.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four geese, and may include no more than three light geese. The season on dusky Canada geese is closed. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open November 9, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four, respectively.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 7 and 14 coots, respectively.

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 doves, respectively.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 16 snipe, respectively.

    Band-Tailed Pigeons

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four pigeons, respectively.

    General: Tribal members must possess a tribal hunting permit from the Point No Point Tribal Council pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours are from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (q) The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, Isabella Reservation, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan (Tribal Members Only).

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 doves.

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 20, including no more than 5 hen mallard, 5 wood duck, 5 black duck, 5 pintail, 5 redhead, 5 scaup, and 5 canvasback.

    Mergansers

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10, including no more than 5 hooded mergansers.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 in the aggregate.

    Coots and Gallinule

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 in the aggregate.

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10.

    Common Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 16.

    Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 20 in the aggregate.

    Sandhill Crane

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: One.

    General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits except for rails, of which the possession limit equals the daily bag limit (20). Tribal members must possess a tribal hunting permit from the Saginaw Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until one-half hour after sunset. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (r) Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Darrington, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: Five geese.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 coots.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: Five brant.

    General: Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until one-half hour after sunset. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (s) Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (Tribal Members Only).

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 14, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 doves.

    Teal

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 20 in the aggregate

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 20, including no more than 10 mallards (only 5 of which may be hens), 5 canvasback, 5 black duck, and 5 wood duck.

    Mergansers

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 in the aggregate.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 in the aggregate.

    Coots and Gallinule

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 in the aggregate.

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open September 2 through December 1, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10.

    Common Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 15 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 16.

    Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 20 in the aggregate.

    General: Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits except for rails, of which the possession limit equals the daily bag limit (20). Tribal members must possess a tribal hunting permit from the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until one-half hour after sunset. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (t) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Fort Hall, Idaho (Nontribal Hunters).

    Ducks, Including Mergansers

    Duck Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 18, 2019.

    Scaup Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks and mergansers, including no more than two hen mallards, two pintail, three scaup (when open), two canvasback, and two redheads. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Same as ducks.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 coots. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Common Snipe

    Season Dates: Same as ducks.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 24 snipe, respectively.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 18, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 4 and 12, respectively.

    White-Fronted Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 18, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 30, respectively.

    Light Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 6, 2018, through January 18, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 20 and 60, respectively.

    General Conditions: Nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 regarding shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older must possess a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) signed in ink across the stamp face. Other regulations established by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also apply on the reservation.

    (u) Skokomish Tribe, Shelton, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 16, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag limit on harlequin duck is one per season. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 16, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese is closed. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open November 1, 2018, through February 15, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 2 and 4 brant, respectively.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 16, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 and 50 coots, respectively.

    Mourning Dove

    Season Dates: Open September 16, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 mourning dove, respectively.

    Band-Tailed Pigeon

    Season Dates: Open September 16, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and four band-tailed pigeon, respectively.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 16, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 16 Snipe, respectively.

    General Conditions: Tribal members must possess a tribal hunting permit from the Skokomish Indian Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (v) Spokane Tribe of Indians, Wellpinit, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 2, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, two pintail, three scaup, two canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag limit on harlequin duck is one per season. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 2, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Four Canada geese, 10 White-fronted geese, and 20 light geese. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    General Conditions: Tribal members must possess a tribal hunting permit from the Spokane Indian Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (w) [Reserved]

    (x) Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Arlington, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Common Snipe

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 30, respectively.

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 ducks. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 coots. The possession limit is three times the daily bag limit.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 6 and 18, respectively. The season on brant is closed.

    General Conditions: Tribal members hunting on lands will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, which will be enforced by the Stillaguamish Tribal Law Enforcement. Tribal members are required to use steel shot or a nontoxic shot as required by Federal regulations.

    (y) Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, LaConner, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Ceded Territory and Swinomish Reservation Ducks and Mergansers

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 20 and 40, respectively.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 10 and 20 geese, respectively.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 5 and 10 brant, respectively.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 and 75 coots, respectively.

    Mourning Dove

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 15 and 30 mourning dove, respectively.

    Band-Tailed Pigeon

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Three and six band-tailed pigeon, respectively.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 15 and 30 snipe, respectively.

    General Conditions: Shooting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset. Tribal members are required to use steel shot or a nontoxic shot as required by Federal regulations.

    (z) The Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Tulalip Indian Reservation, Marysville, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks and Mergansers

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 15 ducks, including no more than 10 pintail, 10 canvasback, and ten wood ducks, and 10 blue-winged teal. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Sea Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 15 sea ducks, including no more than 10 harlequin. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 15 geese, including no more than 10 Cackling Canada geese or 10 Dusky Canada geese. Possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Five and ten brant, respectively.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 25 and 25 coots, respectively.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 8 and 16 snipe, respectively.

    General Conditions: All tribal hunters must have a valid Tribal identification card on his or her person while hunting. All nontribal hunters must obtain and possess while hunting a valid Tulalip Tribe hunting permit and be accompanied by a Tulalip Tribal member. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, and steel or federally-approved nontoxic shot is required for all migratory bird hunting. Hunters must observe all other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

    (aa) Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Woolley, Washington (Tribal Members Only).

    Mourning Doves

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 12 and 15 mourning doves, respectively.

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 15 and 20, respectively.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through February 15, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 20 and 30, respectively.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 7 and 10 geese, respectively.

    Brant

    Season Dates: Open November 1 through 10, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Two and two, respectively.

    General Conditions: Tribal members must have the tribal identification and harvest report card on their person to hunt. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, except shooting hours would be 15 minutes before official sunrise to 15 minutes after official sunset.

    (bb) Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Aquinnah, Massachusetts (Tribal Members Only).

    Teal

    Season Dates: Open October 8, 2018, through February 16, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 10 teal.

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open October 8, 2018, through February 16, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: Six ducks, including no more than four hen mallards, six black ducks, four mottled ducks, one fulvous whistling duck, four mergansers, three scaup, two hooded merganser, three wood ducks, one canvasback, two redheads, and two pintail. The season is closed for harlequin ducks.

    Sea Ducks

    Season Dates: Open October 1, 2018, through February 16, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: Seven ducks including no more than four of any one species (only one of which may be a hen eider).

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open October 8 through November 24, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: Three woodcock.

    Canada Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 3 through 15, 2018, and open October 22, 2018, through February 16, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: Eight Canada geese.

    Snow Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 3 through 13, 2018, and open November 19, 2018, through February 16, 2019.

    Daily Bag Limits: 15 snow geese.

    Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Open September 3 through November 3, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: 5 sora and 10 Virginia rails.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 3 through December 8, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limits: Eight snipe.

    General Conditions: Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Nontoxic shot is required. All other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 will be observed.

    (cc) White Earth Band of Ojibwe, White Earth, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only).

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Open September 8 through December 16, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit for Ducks: 10 ducks, including no more than 2 female mallards, 2 pintail, and 2 canvasback.

    Mergansers

    Season Dates: Open September 8 through December 16, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit for Mergansers: Five mergansers, including no more than two hooded mergansers.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through December 15, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 geese through September 221, and 5 thereafter.

    Coots

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots.

    Snipe

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 snipe.

    Mourning Dove

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 mourning dove.

    Woodcock

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 woodcock.

    Rail

    Season Dates: Open September 1 through November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 rail.

    General Conditions: Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontoxic shot is required. All other basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 will be observed.

    Dated: August 17, 2018. Andrea Travnicek, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks .
    [FR Doc. 2018-18382 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 170817779-8161-02] RIN 0648-XG444 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea Subarea AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; reallocation.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is reallocating projected unused amounts of Bering Sea subarea pollock from the incidental catch allowance to the directed fisheries. This action is necessary to allow the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock to be harvested.

    DATES:

    Effective August 21, 2018, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2018 pollock incidental catch allowance in the Bering Sea subarea was established as 47,888 metric tons (mt) by the 2018 and 2019 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018), and as adjusted by reallocations (83 FR 9235, March 5, 2018), in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(1) and the American Fisheries Act (AFA) (Pub. L. 105-277, Division C, Title II).

    As of August 16, 2018, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that approximately 19,700 (mt) of pollock remain in the incidental catch allowance. Based on projected harvest rates of other groundfish species and the expected incidental catch of pollock in those fisheries, the Regional Administrator has determined that 2,500 mt of pollock specified in the incidental catch allowance will not be necessary as incidental catch. Therefore, NMFS is apportioning the projected unused amount, 2,500 mt, of pollock from the incidental catch allowance to the directed fishing allowances established pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A). Pursuant to the pollock allocation requirements set forth in § 679.20(a)(5)(i), this transfer will increase the allocation to catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by the inshore component by 1,250 mt, to catcher/processors and catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by catcher/processors in the offshore component by 1,000 mt, and to catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by motherships in the offshore component by 250 mt. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(ii), 8.5 percent of the 915 mt allocated to catcher/processors in the offshore component, 85 mt, will be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(iii), an additional 5 mt or 0.5 percent of the catcher/processor sector allocation of pollock will be available to unlisted AFA catcher/processors.

    Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), Table 5 of the 2018 and 2019 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI are revised as follows:

    Table 5—Final 2018 Allocations of Pollock TACs to the Directed Pollock Fisheries and to the CDQ Directed Fishing Allowances (DFA) 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Area and sector 2018 Allocations 2018 A season 1 A season DFA SCA harvest limit 2 2018 B season 1 B season DFA Bering Sea subarea TAC 1 1,378,441 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 138,334 62,250 38,734 76,084 ICA 1 45,388 n/a n/a n/a Total Bering Sea non-CDQ DFA 1,194,719 537,624 334,521 657,095 AFA Inshore 597,359 268,812 167,261 328,548 AFA Catcher/Processors 3 477,888 215,049 133,809 262,838 Catch by C/Ps 437,267 196,770 n/a 240,497 Catch by CVs 3 40,620 18,279 n/a 22,341 Unlisted C/P Limit 4 2,389 1,075 n/a 1,314 AFA Motherships 119,472 53,762 33,452 65,710 Excessive Harvesting Limit 5 209,076 n/a n/a n/a Excessive Processing Limit 6 358,416 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea ABC 40,788 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea TAC 1 4,900 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 0 0 n/a 0 ICA 2,400 1,200 n/a 1,200 Aleut Corporation 2,500 2,500 n/a 0 Area harvest limit 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 541 12,236 n/a n/a n/a 542 6,118 n/a n/a n/a 543 2,039 n/a n/a n/a Bogoslof District ICA 8 450 n/a n/a n/a 1 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the Bering Sea subarea pollock, after subtracting the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and the ICA (45,388 mt), is allocated as a DFA as follows: Inshore sector—50 percent, catcher/processor sector (C/P)—40 percent, and mothership sector—10 percent. In the Bering Sea subarea, 45 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10) and 55 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10-November 1). Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) through (iii), the annual Aleutian Islands pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second for the ICA (2,400 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a pollock directed fishery. In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the A season is allocated up to 40 percent of the ABC and the B season is allocated the remainder of the pollock directed fishery. 2 In the Bering Sea subarea, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C), no more than 28 percent of each sector's annual DFA may be taken from the SCA before noon, April 1. 3 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4), not less than 8.5 percent of the DFA allocated to listed catcher/processors shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. 4 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(iii), the AFA unlisted catcher/processors are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/processors sector's allocation of pollock. 5 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(6), NMFS establishes an excessive harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 6 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(7), NMFS establishes an excessive processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 7 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6), NMFS establishes harvest limits for pollock in the A season in Area 541 of no more than 30 percent, in Area 542 of no more than 15 percent, and in Area 543 of no more than 5 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock ABC. 8 Pursuant to § 679.22(a)(7)(i)(B), the Bogoslof District is closed to directed fishing for pollock. The amounts specified are for ICA only and are not apportioned by season or sector. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of projected unused amounts of Bering Sea subarea pollock from the incidental catch allowance to the directed fisheries. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 16, 2018.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 679.20, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18348 Filed 8-21-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 165 Friday, August 24, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 906 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-18-0044; SC18-906-1 PR] Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal periods. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as “the Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the area of production.

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Texas citrus handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2018-19 crop year and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

    This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate from $0.02, the rate that was established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate and utilizing funds from its authorized reserve in order to reduce the reserve balance. The reserve balance has been greater than the sum allowable under the Order, which is approximately equivalent to one year's operating expenses, since 2017. In 2017-18, the Committee was able to reduce its budget by more than $595,000 when an alternative funding source was found for the Mexican fruit fly control program. This dramatic reduction in the overall budget prompted the Committee's need to reduce the balance of the authorized reserve to reflect the lower operating budget.

    The Committee met on May 23, 2018, and unanimously recommended 2018-19 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. The itemized budgeted expenses, including $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses, are the same as the previous fiscal period. However, the proposed assessment rate of $0.01 is lower than the $0.02 rate currently in effect.

    The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments, calculated at $75,000 (7.5 million × $0.01), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $152,920. Funds in the reserve are estimated to be $287,295 at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal period. No additional funds can be added to the reserve until the balance drops below approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35.

    The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

    Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2018-19 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2016-17 season was approximately $16 per carton and total shipments were 7.6 million cartons. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of greater than $7,500,000 ($16 per carton times 7.6 million cartons equals $121.6 million, divided by 13 equals $9.4 million per handler).

    In addition, based on National Agricultural Statistics Service information, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2016-17 season was approximately $9.35 per carton. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, the number of producers and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of $418,000, which is less than $750,000 ($9.35 per carton times 7.6 million cartons equals $71.06 million, divided by 170 equals $418,000 per producer). Thus, the majority of handlers of Texas citrus may be classified as large entities, while the majority of producers may be classified as small entities.

    This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.02 to $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2018-19 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.01 is $0.01 lower than the 2017-18 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2018-19 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.01 rate should provide $75,000 in assessment income (7.5 million × $0.01). Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

    The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2018-19 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2017-18 were the same.

    The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate and utilizing funds from its authorized reserve in order to reduce the reserve balance to bring it in line with the limitation under the Order of approximately one year's expenses.

    Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and the Research Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these committees who reviewed the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. These committees determined that all program activities were adequately funded and essential to the functionality of the Order; thus, no alternate expenditure levels were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the Committee discussed alternatives of maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.02 and lowering the assessment rate to $0.015 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent. However, these alternatives were not recommended because the Committee determined that these assessment rates would not draw a sufficient amount of funds from the authorized reserve to bring the reserve fund total in line with Order requirements.

    Based on these discussions and estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.01 would provide $75,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined that assessment revenue, along with funds from the reserve and interest income, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2018-19 fiscal period.

    A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average grower price for the 2018-19 season should be approximately $9.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2018-19 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.1 percent.

    This proposed rule would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may also reduce the burden on producers.

    The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 23, 2018, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. AMS is 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.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906

    Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 906—ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 906 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 906.235 is revised to read as follows:
    § 906.235 Assessment rate.

    On and after August 1, 2018, an assessment rate of $0.01 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Bruce Summers, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18363 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 611 and 619 RIN 3052-AC97 Organization; Definitions; Eligibility Criteria for Outside Directors AGENCY:

    Farm Credit Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) is proposing to amend its regulations affecting the governance of Farm Credit System (System) institutions. The proposed rule would modify the existing outside director eligibility criteria by expanding the list of persons who would be excluded from nomination for an outside director's seat to ensure the independence of outside directors.

    DATES:

    You may send comments on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email or through the FCA's website. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, we do not accept comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: Send us an email at [email protected]

    FCA website: http://www.fca.gov. Select “Public Commenters,” then “Public Comments,” and follow the directions for “Submitting a Comment.”

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

    Mail: Barry F. Mardock, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090.

    You may review copies of all comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our website at http://www.fca.gov. Once you are in the website, select “Public Commenters,” then “Public Comments,” and follow the directions for “Reading Submitted Public Comments.” We will show your comments as submitted, but for technical reasons we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Identifying information you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove email addresses to help reduce internet spam.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Darius Hale, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, (703) 883-4165, TTY (703) 883-4056, [email protected], or

    Nancy Tunis, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, (703) 883-4061, TTY (703) 883-4056, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Objectives

    The objectives of this proposed rule are to:

    • Amend the eligibility criteria for outside director in § 611.220(a);

    • Remove the definition of outside director in § 619.9235;

    • Strengthen the safety and soundness of System institutions;

    • Strengthen the independence of System institution boards; and

    • Incorporate many of the best corporate governance practices for System institutions.

    II. Background

    The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),1 establishes that System banks and associations must elect a board of directors with such qualifications as may be required by the institution's bylaws. Additionally, the Act specifies that at least one member must be appointed by the stockholder-elected directors and that such member must not be a director, officer, employee, agent, or stockholder of a System institution.2

    1 Pub. L. 92-181, 85 Stat. 583.

    2 Sections 1.4, 2.1, 2.11, 3.2, 3.21(b)(1)(C) and 7.12(c)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Outside directors are appointed by stockholder-elected directors to provide independent perspective and expertise in appropriate areas. Outside directors achieve this by broadening the board's collective knowledge, enhancing the board's independence, and improving the board's ability to carry out its fiduciary duties to the System institution, stockholders and investors. Current FCA regulations, however, do not specify how far removed from the statutory prohibited relationships the outside director candidate must be to adequately fulfill the intended independent role of an outside director. This proposed rule seeks to clarify the eligibility requirements of an outside director to achieve the independence intended by the statutory requirements.

    III. Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed Regulatory Changes A. Definitions [New § 611.220(a)]

    As a result of the proposed changes in eligibility criteria for outside directors in § 611.220, discussed below, we are proposing to add a new definition section in § 611.220 that would only apply to that section. The newly defined terms are meant to provide clarity on the meaning of the new outside director eligibility criteria.

    The proposed rule would add affiliated organizations to the definitions in § 611.220. The new term affiliated organization is defined to mean an entity that is legally distinct from any System institution, but is organized and operated for the benefit of, and in support of, an institution and conducts activities that advance the mission of an institution.

    The proposed rule would add borrowers to the list of persons excluded from consideration for an outside director position under § 611.220. Accordingly, the new term borrower is added to the definitions in § 611.220 and is defined to mean an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, trust, corporation, or other business entity to which an institution has made a loan or a commitment to make a loan or purchased a loan or participation interest in a loan. The new term borrower would also include any person or entity to whom an institution has made a lease or a commitment to make a lease, or who guarantees repayment of a loan.

    The proposed rule would add controlling interest to the definitions in § 611.220. The new term controlling interest is defined to mean an individual that, directly or indirectly, or acting through or in concert with one or more persons:

    (1) Owns 5 percent or more of the equity in an entity;

    (2) Owns, controls, or has the power to vote 5 percent or more of any class of voting securities of an entity; or

    (3) Has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management of policies of such entity. The new term controlling interest is consistent with the definition of controlled entity found in § 612.2130(c). The proposed rule would add the new term entity to the definitions in § 611.220. The new term entity means a corporation, company, association, firm, joint venture, partnership (general or limited), society, joint stock company, trust (business or otherwise), fund, or other organization or institution. This is consistent with the definition of entity found in § 612.2130(e).

    The proposed rule would add the new term immediate family member to the definitions in § 611.220. The new term immediate family member is defined to mean spouse, parent(s), sibling(s), children, mother(s)- and father(s)-in-law, brother(s)- and sister(s)-in-law, and son(s)- and daughter(s)-in-law. This is consistent with the definition of immediate family member found in § 620.1(e).

    As a result of the proposed changes in eligibility criteria for an outside director in § 611.220, we are proposing to delete the definition of outside director in § 619.9235. The current definition in § 619.9235 is not consistent with the changes proposed in § 611.220, and it is unnecessary to duplicate the same language as is proposed in that section. Deleting § 619.9235 will provide clarity in who may serve as an outside director and will avoid redundancy.

    B. Eligibility Criteria of Outside Directors [New § 611.220(b)]

    We propose modifying the existing outside director eligibility criteria in § 611.220(a) 3 by expanding the list of persons who would be excluded from nomination for an outside director's seat. The proposed rule would add the following to the list of persons excluded from consideration for an outside director position:

    3 Due to the addition of a new Definitions paragraph in § 611.220, we will re-designate the current § 611.220(a) as § 611.220(b) for Eligibility, Number, and Term.

    (1) Borrowers of the institution;

    (2) Immediate family members of any director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder or borrower of a System institution; and

    (3) Anyone who has a controlling interest in:

    (i) An entity that borrows from a System institution; or

    (ii) An affiliated organization of a System institution.

    The purpose of expanding those individuals ineligible to serve in the outside director's role is to further strengthen the independence perspective on each System institution's board. Congress' intent on establishing the outside director role was to ensure an independent voice was brought to the boards of System institutions. As such, outside directors are only permitted to serve on the board of directors of one System institution or affiliated organization at a time.4

    4 An agricultural credit association and its wholly owned subsidiary associations are treated as a single entity for examination and regulatory purposes. Therefore, there is no conflict with a director sitting on the board of an ACA and its wholly owned subsidiary associations.

    To maintain that independent voice, current FCA regulations specify that a candidate for outside director should not be a stockholder of a System institution. However, the regulations do not specifically exclude a borrower from serving as an outside director. Borrowers may not necessarily be stockholders in a System institution. We believe that to be truly independent of a System institution when being vetted for an outside director's seat, all borrowers should be specifically excluded from consideration. This addition would capture those individuals who have signed a promissory note in a joint capacity (i.e., co-applicant, guarantor), but do not own System stock.

    To further ensure independence from System institutions, we propose excluding individuals from serving as an outside director if they have an immediate family member who is a director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder, or a borrower of a System institution. This would provide additional clarity to our existing rule as to which individuals would be ineligible to serve as an outside director.

    We also propose that a person who has a controlling interest in an entity that borrows from a System institution or an affiliated organization of a System institution should not be eligible to serve as an outside director. Those persons who have a controlling stake in, or influence the decisions of, an entity should not be considered to serve as an outside director if that entity is a borrower of a System institution. A person who maintains a controlling interest in an entity who borrows from the System or in an affiliated organization does not have the independence meant to fill the outside director's role. The proposed rule would not limit employees of entity borrowers or affiliated organizations from consideration as an outside director. Instead, it aims to clarify that those persons who control or advance the financial or policy decisions of an entity, borrower, or affiliated organization must not be considered as an outside director because their controlling stake or position in the entity or affiliated organization could lessen their independence.

    We believe that expanding the list of those excluded from outside director consideration will further improve the board's ability to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities to the System institution and its stockholders and investors. We do not believe that including additional eligibility criteria would adversely affect the board's ability to select a qualified candidate for an outside director seat.

    IV. Compliance Date

    System institutions would be required to comply with the changes in the eligibility criteria of outside directors at the next appointment of an outside director candidate after the effective date of the final rule. We invite your specific comments on the compliance timeframe if this rule becomes a final rule. If a later compliance date is suggested, please provide a specific burden that would be alleviated with any later compliance date.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FCA hereby certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 611

    Agriculture, Banks, banking, Conflict of interests, Crime, Investigations, Rural areas.

    12 CFR Part 619

    Agriculture, Banks, banking, Rural areas.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 611 and 619 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 611—ORGANIZATION 1. The authority citation for part 611 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.12, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.21, 4.3A, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.15, 4.20, 4.21, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28A, 5.9, 5.17, 5.25, 7.0-7.13, 8.5(e) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2002, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2020, 2021, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2091, 2092, 2093, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2130, 2142, 2154a, 2183, 2184, 2203, 2208, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2243, 2252, 2261, 2279a-2279f-1, 2279aa-5(e)); secs. 411 and 412 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1638; sec. 414 of Pub. L. 100-399, 102 Stat. 989, 1004.

    2. Section 611.220 is revised to read as follows:
    § 611.220 Outside directors.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

    (1) Affiliated organization means an entity that is legally distinct from any Farm Credit System institution, but is organized and operated for the benefit of, and in support of, an institution and conducts activities that advance the mission of an institution.

    (2) Borrower means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, trust, corporation, or other business entity to which an institution has made a loan or a commitment to make a loan or purchased a loan or participation interest in a loan. The term borrower also includes any person or entity to whom an institution has made a lease or a commitment to make a lease, or who guarantees repayment of a loan.

    (3) Controlling interest means an individual that, directly or indirectly, or acting through or in concert with one or more persons:

    (i) Owns 5 percent or more of the equity in an entity;

    (ii) Owns, controls, or has the power to vote 5 percent or more of any class of voting securities of an entity; or

    (iii) Has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management of policies of such entity.

    (4) Entity means a corporation, company, association, firm, joint venture, partnership (general or limited), society, joint stock company, trust (business or otherwise), fund, or other organization or institution.

    (5) Immediate family member means spouse, parent(s), sibling(s), children, mother(s)- and father(s)-in-law, brother(s)- and sister(s)-in-law, and son(s)- and daughter(s)-in-law.

    (b) Eligibility, number and term—(1) Eligibility. Eligibility to serve, and continue serving, as an outside director requires independence from affiliations with the Farm Credit System. Farm Credit banks and associations must make a reasonable effort to select outside directors possessing some or all of the desired director qualifications identified pursuant to § 611.210(a).

    (i) No candidate for an outside director position may be a director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder, or borrower of an institution in the Farm Credit System or be an immediate family member of any of the above. An outside director candidate or an immediate family member of such candidate must not have a controlling interest in:

    (A) An entity that borrows from a System institution; or

    (B) An affiliated organization of a System institution.

    (ii) At any given time, an outside director is eligible to serve on the board of directors of only one Farm Credit System institution or affiliated organization.

    (2) Number. Stockholder-elected directors must constitute at least 60 percent of the members of each institution's board.

    (i) Each Farm Credit bank must have at least two outside directors.

    (ii) Associations with total assets exceeding $500 million as of January 1 of each year must have no fewer than two outside directors on the board. However, this requirement does not apply if it causes the percent of stockholder-elected directors to be less than 75 percent of the board.

    (iii) Associations with $500 million or less in total assets as of January 1 of each year must have at least one outside director.

    (3) Terms of office. Banks and associations may not establish a different term of office for outside directors than that established for stockholder-elected directors.

    (c) Removal. Each institution must establish and maintain procedures for removal of outside directors. When the removal of an outside director is sought before the expiration of the outside director's term, the reason for removal must be documented. An institution's director removal procedures must allow for removal of an outside director by a majority vote of all voting stockholders voting, in person or by proxy, or by a two-thirds majority vote of the full board of directors. The outside director subject to the removal action is prohibited from voting in his or her own removal action.

    PART 619—DEFINITIONS 3. The authority citation for part 619 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 3.1, 3.2, 3.21, 4.9, 5.9, 5.17, 5.19, 7.0, 7.1, 7.6, 7.8 and 7.12 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2012, 2013, 2015, 2072, 2073, 2075, 2092, 2093, 2122, 2123, 2142, 2160, 2243, 2252, 2254, 2279a, 2279a-1, 2279b, 2279c-1, 2279f); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102.

    § 619.9235 [Removed]
    4. Remove § 619.9235. Dated: August 21, 2018. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18312 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0760; Product Identifier 2018-NM-095-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation 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 Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) on the ailerons of airplanes equipped with blended winglets. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the upper and lower reinforcing straps on the ailerons, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 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 Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108-3812; phone: 206-762-1171; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.aviationpartners.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-2018-0760; 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:

    Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3522; 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-2018-0760; Product Identifier 2018-NM-095-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) were found on the ailerons of Dassault Aviation airplanes equipped with blended winglets installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST02188SE or STC ST02241SE. This condition is the result of hydrogen embrittlement in the reinforcing strap manufacturing process. If not addressed, this condition could lead to fatigue cracking of the ailerons and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections for any signs of cracking of the external upper and lower reinforcing straps on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) ailerons.

    We also reviewed Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing the external upper and lower reinforcing straps on the LH and RH ailerons.

    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 accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, specifies salvaging and returning a damaged strap to Aviation Partners, Inc. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Repetitive inspections 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle $0 $85 per inspection cycle $5,950 per inspection cycle Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement (4 doublers) 32 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,720 $4,540 $7,260

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement (per doubler) 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $1,135 $1,815
    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 and associated appliances 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): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0760; Product Identifier 2018-NM-095-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 9, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, and FALCON 900EX airplanes equipped with blended winglets installed in accordance with the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: STC ST02241SE.

    (2) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 and FALCON 900EX airplanes: STC ST02188SE.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked reinforcing straps (doublers) on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) ailerons of airplanes equipped with blended winglets. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of aileron reinforcing straps, which could lead to fatigue cracking of the ailerons and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Action

    Within 8 months or 400 flight hours (FH), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 months or 400 FH, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the upper and lower reinforcing straps of the LH and RH ailerons, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017. If any cracked aileron reinforcing strap is found, before further flight: Replace the reinforcing strap with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017.

    (h) Terminating Action

    Replacement of any aileron reinforcing strap with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that part only.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, dated March 3, 2017; or Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision A, dated April 4, 2017.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, dated March 7, 2017.

    (j) No Reporting Requirement and no Parts Return

    (1) Although Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-001, Revision B, dated December 20, 2017; and Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (2) Although Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9-17-002, Revision A, dated December 20, 2017, specifies salvaging and returning a damaged strap to Aviation Partners, Inc., this AD does not include that requirement.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle[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.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3522; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108-3812; phone: 206-762-1171; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.aviationpartners.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 16, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18148 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0759; Product Identifier 2018-NM-055-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 A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 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-2018-0759; 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:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    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-2018-0759; Product Identifier 2018-NM-055-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 2018-0034, dated February 5, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A330 and A340 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the A330 and A340 ALS document(s). The Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items are specified in ALS Part 1. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

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

    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2014-0009 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-10-24, Amendment 39-18898 (82 FR 24035, May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-24”)] to require the implementation of the instructions and airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 1 documents at Revision 07.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, improvement of safe life component selection and life extension campaigns resulted in life limitations changes, among others new or more restrictive life limitations, approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus successively issued Revision 08 and Revision 09 of the A330 and A340 ALS Part 1, compiling all ALS Part 1 changes approved since previous Revision 07.

    In addition, Airbus published Variation 9.2 to remove from ALS Part 1 some life limits connected to a deficiency in the fatigue performance of 300M high strength steel used in forgings. These life limits, applicable only for a specific batch of parts, are required by EASA AD 2017-0185.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0009, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable ALS.

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain principle structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0759.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2017-10-24

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2017-10-24. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2017-10-24.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017. This service information describes SL-ALI for the landing gear.

    Airbus SAS has also issued A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017, and A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017. This service information describes revised life limits for certain parts.

    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.

    Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI

    This proposed AD does not include the Model A340 airplanes that are specified in the MCAI. Instead, we have added the MCAI to the required airworthiness actions list (RAAL) for the Model A340 airplanes.

    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 AD Requirements

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

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

    Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

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

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

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

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

    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

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

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

    This proposed AD therefore would apply to Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes; Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; and Model A330-300 series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2018-0759; Product Identifier 2018-NM-055-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 9, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-10-24, Amendment 39-18898 (82 FR 24035, May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017-10-24”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or an original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 29, 2017.

    (1) Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (3) Airbus SAS Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by revisions to certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI) documents, which specify more restrictive instructions and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance times for accomplishing the tasks are at the applicable times specified in the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) Airbus SAS A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1, Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL-ALI), Revision 09, dated September 18, 2017.

    (2) Airbus SAS A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.2, dated November 28, 2017.

    (3) Airbus SAS A330 ALS Part 1, SL-ALI, Variation 9.3, dated November 29, 2017.

    (h) Terminating Actions for AD 2017-10-24

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017-10-24.

    (i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

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

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-10-24 are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0034, dated February 5, 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-2018-0759.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    (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 16, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18147 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0671; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-3] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Maurice, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sioux County Regional Airport, Maurice, IA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed at Sioux County Regional Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0671; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0671; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Sioux County Regional Airport, Maurice, IA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed for the airport. This action would enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Maurice, IA [New] Sioux County Regional Airport, IA (Lat. 42°59′09″ N, long. 096°09′41″ W)

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 15, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18253 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537 [NHTSA-2018-0067; EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283; FRL-9981-74-OAR] RIN 2127-AL76; RIN 2060-AU09 The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA and NHTSA are announcing public hearings to be held for the joint proposed “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” (SAFE Vehicles Rule) issued on August 2, 2018. NHTSA will also accept comment on NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), available on NHTSA's website at www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe. Three hearings will be held, on September 24, September 25, and September 26, 2018. The agencies will assume that all oral comments presented at the hearing are addressed to the joint proposed rules only, unless speakers specifically reference NHTSA's Draft EIS in oral or written testimony.

    DATES:

    NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on the following dates: September 24, 2018 in Fresno, California; September 25, 2018 in Dearborn, Michigan; and September 26, 2018 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The hearings will start at 10 a.m. local time and continue until 5:00 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to speak. If you would like to present oral testimony at one of these public hearings, please contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, at least ten days before the hearing.

    ADDRESSES:

    The September 24, 2018 hearing will be held at the The Grand 1401, 1401 Fulton Street, Fresno, California 93721. The September 25, 2018 hearing will be held at the Dearborn Inn, 20301 Oakwood Boulevard, Dearborn, Michigan 48124. The September 26, 2018 hearing will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown, One Bigelow Square, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. The hearings will be held at sites accessible to individuals with disabilities.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you would like to present oral testimony at a public hearing, please contact Kil-Jae Hong at NHTSA by the date specified under DATES, at [email protected] Please provide the following information: Name, affiliation, address, email address, telephone and fax numbers (if applicable), time you wish to speak (morning, afternoon) if there is a preference, and whether you require accommodations such as a sign language interpreter or translator.

    Questions concerning the proposed rules should be addressed to NHTSA: James Tamm, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 493-0515. EPA: Chris Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: [email protected] You may learn more about the proposal by visiting NHTSA's or EPA's web pages at http://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe or https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/safer-and-affordable-fuel-efficient-vehicles-proposed, or by searching the public dockets (NHTSA-2018-0067 (for the proposed rule) or NHTSA-2017-0069 (for the Draft EIS); EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283) at www.regulations.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the public hearings is to provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments regarding NHTSA and EPA's proposals for the SAFE Vehicles Rule. These hearings also offer an opportunity for the public to provide oral comments regarding NHTSA's Draft EIS, accompanying the proposed NHTSA fuel economy standards. The agencies will assume that all oral comments presented at the hearing are addressed to the joint proposed rules only, unless speakers specifically reference NHTSA's Draft EIS in oral or written testimony.

    The SAFE Vehicles Rule, if finalized, would amend certain existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, all covering model years 2021 through 2026. More specifically, NHTSA is proposing new CAFE standards for model years 2022 through 2026 and amending its 2021 model year CAFE standards because they are no longer maximum feasible standards, and EPA is proposing to amend its carbon dioxide emissions standards for model years 2021 through 2025 because they are no longer appropriate and reasonable in addition to establishing new standards for model year 2026. The preferred alternative is to retain the model year 2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for passenger cars and light trucks) for both programs through model year 2026, but comment is sought on a range of alternatives discussed throughout this document. Compared to maintaining the post-2020 standards set forth in 2012, current estimates indicate that the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would save over 500 billion dollars in societal costs and reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives (over the lifetimes of vehicles through MY 2029). U.S. fuel consumption would increase by about half a million barrels per day (2-3 percent of total daily consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration), emissions would increase by 7,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2100, and would impact the global climate by 3/1000th of one degree Celsius by 2100, also when compared to the standards set forth in 2012.

    The proposal for which EPA and NHTSA are holding the public hearings was signed on August 2, 2018 and the pre-publication version is available at the web pages listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and, also in the rulemaking dockets. NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available on NHTSA's web page and in NHTSA's docket for the EIS, both referenced above. We expect the official proposal to be published in the Federal Register soon. Please note that the pre-publication version of the proposal specified that the agencies would hold three public hearings in Washington DC, Detroit Michigan, and Los Angeles California, with details to be announced in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. The agencies have decided instead to hold three public hearings, in Fresno California, Dearborn, Michigan, and Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, as specified above in this notice. Once NHTSA and EPA learn how many people have registered to speak at each public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wishes to give an oral presentation. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately five minutes. We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you wish to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up.

    NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of each hearing and keep the official record of each hearing open for 30 days to allow speakers to submit supplementary information to the dockets listed above. Panel members may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter.

    Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings. To be assured of consideration, written comments on the proposal must be received by the date indicated in the Federal Register once the document publishes. Written comments on NHTSA's Draft EIS must be received or uploaded to NHTSA's docket for the EIS by September 24, 2018.

    Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Amanda Gunasekara, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18418 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0577; FRL-9982-37] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of filing of petitions and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected]; or Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

    Amended Tolerance Exemption for Non-Inert (Except PIPS)

    PP 8F8680. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0520). Eden Research plc, 6 Priory Ct., Priory Court Business Park, Poulton, Cirencester, GL7 5JB, United Kingdom (c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192), requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1240 to include residues of the fungicide and nematocide thymol in or on raw agricultural commodities or processed food. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of thymol is being requested; therefore, the requirement to provide an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of pesticide residue is not applicable. Contact: BPPD.

    New Tolerance Exemption for Inert (Except PIPS)

    PP IN-11098. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0203). Spring Trading Company (203 Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, TX 77354) on behalf of Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, 12120 Wickchester Lane, Houston, TX 77079) requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of alcohols, C2-33, manuf. of, by-products from, overheads (CAS Reg. No. 876065-86-0) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 8F8681. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0522). Eden Research plc, 6 Priory Ct., Priory Court Business Park, Poulton, Cirencester, GL7 5JB, United Kingdom (c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide eugenol in or on raw agricultural commodities or processed food. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of eugenol is being requested; therefore, the requirement to provide an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of pesticide residue is not applicable. Contact: BPPD.

    2. PP 8F8690. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0073). LAM International Corp., 117 South Parkmont St., Butte, MT 59701, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the nematocide Purpureocillium lilacinum strain PL11 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because, when used as proposed, Purpureocillium lilacinum strain PL11 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern. Contact: BPPD.

    New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 8E8674. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0525). Dow Agro Sciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-1054, requests to establish import tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.495 for the residues of the insecticide spinosad, determined by measuring only the two related active ingredients: Spinosyn A (Factor A: CAS #131929-60-7) or 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3,4-tri- O -methyl-α- L -manno-pyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5-(dimethylamino)-tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-14-methyl-1H-as-Indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione; and Spinosyn D (Factor D; CAS #131929-63-0) or 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3,4-tri- O -methyl-α- L -manno-pyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5-(dimethyl-amino)-tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-methyl-1H-as-Indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione] in or on tea, dried at 70 parts per million (ppm) and tea, instant at 70 ppm. The EPA has determined adequate tolerance enforcement methods are available for spinosad residues in a variety of plant and animal matrices including a number of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/Mass Spectrometry (MS)/MS methods. Additional details on the analytical methods can be found in the supporting documentation in docket ID (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0666-0025). Contact: (RD)

    2. PP 7F8640. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0088). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide, emamectin, in or on vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.03 parts per million. The high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analytical method is used to measure and evaluate the chemical emamectin. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18406 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 204, 212, and 252 [Docket DARS-2018-0038] RIN 0750-AJ45 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Antiterrorism Training Requirements for Contractors (DFARS Case 2017-D034) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the requirement for contractors to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D034, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2017-D034.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2017-D034” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2017-D034 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Kimberly Bass, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kimberly Bass, telephone 571-372-6174.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement the antiterrorism training requirements for contractors provided in DoD Instruction (DoDI) O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards (available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/issuances/dodi/). The rule will ensure contractors are aware of the requirement for contractor personnel, who as a condition of contract performance require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation, to complete Level I DoD antiterrorism awareness training. Routine physical access is considered more than intermittent access, such as when a contractor employee is required to obtain a Common Access Card. The training is required within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter and must be completed either through DoD-sponsored and certified computer or web-based distance learning instruction, or under the instruction of a qualified Level I antiterrorism awareness instructor.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    This rule proposes a new DFARS subpart 204.7X, Antiterrorism Awareness Training, to address the requirement for covered contractors to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training. The new subpart advises contracting officers of the training requirement, the authorized sources of training, and when training must be completed by contractors. This subpart also prescribes a new DFARS clause 252.204-7XXX, Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, for use in all solicitations and contracts, including those for the acquisition of commercial items, when contractor personnel will require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation. The clause advises contractors of the training requirements, provides a reference to additional information and guidance available on the internet, and instructs contractors to include the clause in all subcontracts. Conforming changes are made to DFARS 212.301(f)(ii) to add the new clause to the list of contract clauses applicable to the acquisition of commercial items.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items

    This rule proposes to create a new clause, DFARS 252.204-7XXX, Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, to advise DoD contractors of the requirement for its employees (and those of its subcontractors, if applicable) to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter, if, as a condition of contract performance require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or a military installation. DoD plans to apply this clause to solicitations and contracts below the SAT and to the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items (as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101). This is necessary in order to reach as wide an audience as possible to ensure contractor personnel who are required to have routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation are aware of this training requirement.

    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

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule is not expected to 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. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    This action is necessary to implement the requirements of DoD Instruction O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards, to ensure that contractors complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training.

    The objective of this proposed rule is to ensure contractor personnel who, as a condition of contract performance, require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation are aware of terrorism threats and the proper responses to threat actions. In recent years, there have been terrorist events directed at Federally-controlled facilities and military installation and all personnel that routinely access those facilities need to be aware of the threat.

    It is expected that contracts that contain the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel, are contracts that would require contractor personnel to have routine physical access to Federally-controlled facilities or military installations. According to data available in the Electronic Data Access system, in fiscal year 2017, DoD awarded 137,106 contracts containing the clause at FAR 52.204-9 to 15,814 businesses, of which 10,837 (68.5 percent) were to small businesses. Common Access Cards (CAC) are issued to contractors who require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation. There are currently 507,665 contractors that hold CAC cards.

    The impact is not expected to be significant, because current contractor employees who hold a CAC have already completed the requisite training and the cost of training new contractor personnel is at the expense of the Department. The time allotted for the training is approximately two hours per year. The training will provide safety awareness and precautionary measures that will benefit contractor personnel requiring routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facilities or military installations. This awareness not only benefits the contractor personnel, but also DoD civilians, military, and its assets.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2017-D034), in correspondence.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the 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 Parts 204, 212, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 212, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204, 212, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2. Add new subpart 204.7X to read as follows: Subpart 204.7X—Antiterrorism Awareness Training Sec. 204.7X00 Scope of subpart. 204.7X01 Definition. 204.7X02 Policy. 204.7X03 Contract clause. Subpart 204.7X—Antiterrorism Awareness Training
    204.7X00 Scope of subpart.

    This subpart provides policy and guidance related to antiterrorism awareness training for contractor personnel who require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.

    204.7X01 Definition.

    As used in this subpart—

    Military installation means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department (see 10 U.S.C. 2801(c)(4)).

    204.7X02 Policy.

    It is DoD policy that—

    (a) Contractor personnel who, as a condition of contract performance, require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation are required to complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter.

    (b) In accordance with Department of Defense Instruction O-2000.16, Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards, Level I antiterrorism awareness training may be completed—

    (1) Through a DoD-sponsored and certified computer or web-based distance learning instruction for Level I antiterrorism awareness; or

    (2) Under the instruction of a qualified Level I antiterrorism awareness instructor.

    204.7X03 Contract clause.

    Include the clause at 252.204-7XXX, DoD Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when contractor personnel require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.

    PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 3. Amend section 212.301, by adding new paragraph (f)(ii)(G) to read as follows:
    212.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

    (f) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (G) Use the clause at 252.204-7XXX, Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors, as prescribed in 204.7X03.

    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Add section 252.204-7XXX to read as follows:
    252.204-7XXX Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors.

    As prescribed in 204.7X03, use the following clause:

    Level I Antiterrorism Awareness Training for Contractors (Date)

    (a) Definition. As used in this clause—

    Military installation means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department (see 10 U.S.C. 2801(c)(4)).

    (b) Training. Contractor personnel who require routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation shall complete Level I antiterrorism awareness training within 30 days of requiring access and annually thereafter. In accordance with Department of Defense Instruction O-2000.16 Volume 1, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program Implementation: DoD AT Standards, Level I antiterrorism awareness training shall be completed—

    (1) Through a DoD-sponsored and certified computer or web-based distance learning instruction for Level I antiterrorism awareness; or

    (2) Under the instruction of a Level I antiterrorism awareness instructor.

    (c) Information and guidance pertaining DoD antiterrorism awareness training is available at http://jko.jfcom.mil/ or as otherwise identified in the performance work statement.

    (d) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items, when subcontractor performance requires routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility or military installation.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2018-18250 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252 [Docket DARS-2018-0028] RIN 0750-AJ71 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Sunset of Provision Relating to the Procurement of Certain Goods (DFARS Case 2018-D007) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that repeals the Fiscal Year 2015 restrictions on the source of photovoltaic devices in contracts awarded by DoD that result in DoD ownership of photovoltaic devices by means other than DoD purchase of the photovoltaic devices as end products.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018-D007, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2018-D007”. Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2018-D007” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2018-D007 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Amy G. Williams, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement section 813(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. Section 813(b) repeals section 858 of the NDAA for FY 2015, effective October 1, 2018, but does not repeal section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011. DoD published the final rule to implement section 858 under DFARS case 2015-D007 in the Federal Register on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72599).

    Section 858 of the NDAA for FY 2015 did not contain specific language to rescind or supersede section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011, which was first implemented in the DFARS by an interim rule under DFARS Case 2011-D046, published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2011 (76 FR 78858), and then finalized on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30368).

    II. Discussion and Analysis A. Analysis of Statutory Requirements 1. Covered Contracts

    Section 846 applies to contracts awarded by DoD, including energy savings performance contracts, utility energy service contracts, and private housing contracts, to the extent that such contracts result in ownership of photovoltaic devices by DoD. Section 846 further provides that DoD is deemed to own a photovoltaic device if the device is—

    • Installed on DoD property or in a facility owned by DoD; and

    • Reserved for the exclusive use of DOD for the full economic life of the device.

    Section 858 substituted “or” for “and” in connecting the two conditions. Therefore, either one of the conditions would be sufficient to make the law applicable. By repealing section 858, the law does not apply unless both of the conditions are met. Although section 858 explicitly restricted applicability to the United States, that restriction is still equivalent to the section 846 applicability, because the Buy American statute invoked in section 846 does not apply overseas. Land leases are not addressed in this rule because land leases are outside the scope of the FAR and DFARS.

    2. Requirements

    Section 846 requires that, with some exceptions, photovoltaic devices provided under covered contracts comply with the Buy American statute. The Buy American statute requires, for use inside the United States, that manufactured articles, materials and supplies be manufactured in the United States, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States. When section 858 was enacted, it imposed basically the same requirement, requiring that any photovoltaic device installed under a covered contract be manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States, but no longer referenced the Buy American statute.

    3. Exceptions

    Because the requirement under section 858 was separated from the explicit application of the Buy American statute, the exceptions and waivers that apply to the Buy American statute no longer automatically applied to the restrictions of section 858, unless provided for and authorized by section 858. Now that section 858 has been repealed, the following exceptions are again applicable:

    • Exceptions for domestic nonavailability and acquisitions in which the values of the photovoltaic devices does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold.

    • Public interest determination. The Buy American statute provides for individual or class determinations that application of the Buy American statute is inconsistent with the public interest. Through public interest class determinations, DoD does not apply the Buy American statute to (1) qualifying country end products; or (2) U.S.-made end products, if the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement applies (i.e., the aggregate value of the photovoltaic devices to be utilized is $180,000 or more). In implementing section 846, this determination was applied to photovoltaic devices not acquired as end products. Section 858 only allowed, on a case-by-case basis, determinations that application of the restriction in 858 are not in the public interest. Such case-by-case determinations are no longer required in order to allow a contractor to utilize a qualifying country photovoltaic device or a U.S.-made photovoltaic device.

    • Determination of unreasonable cost. Both the Buy American statute and section 858 allow a determination not to utilize a domestic product if the cost of the domestic product is unreasonable. With regard to determining that the cost of a domestic item is unreasonable, Executive Order 10582, Prescribing Uniform Procedures for Certain Determinations under the Buy-American Act, provides a methodology to determine unreasonable cost, using a minimum differential of 6 percent, but also provides that the head of an executive agency may determine that the use of a higher differential between the cost of materials of domestic origin and the cost of materials of foreign origin “is not unreasonable.” The then Secretary of Defense, Cyrus Vance, signed a memorandum on May 7, 1964, providing for application of a 50 percent differential under the Buy American statute. Therefore, DoD proposes to continue application of a 50 percent evaluation factor when determining whether the price of domestic photovoltaic devices is unreasonable when the estimated aggregate value of the photovoltaic devices to be utilized is less than $180,000 (the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement threshold). The application of an evaluation factor to foreign products to determine whether the price of domestic products is reasonable is not applicable when the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement applies, because there is a prohibition under that agreement to buying any products that are not designated, domestic, U.S.-made, or qualifying country products. DoD has waived the application of the Buy American statute to U.S.-made products so no evaluation factor is applicable.

    • Exemption for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1907 and determinations by the Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy, the component test of the Buy American statute does not apply to the acquisition of COTS items. This exemption no longer applied to photovoltaic devices utilized under section 858, but is now re-instated under section 846.

    • Trade agreements or otherwise provided by law. The restrictions of both section 846 and section 858 are subject to the exceptions provided in the Trade Agreements Act or otherwise provided by law. The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) provides authority for the President to waive the Buy American statute and other discriminatory provisions (e.g., sections 846 and 858) for eligible products from designated countries. This authority has been delegated to the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

    B. Regulatory Implementation

    This proposed rule essentially reinstates the DFARS regulations as they existed prior to publication of the final rule under DFARS Case 2015-D007 on November 20, 2015, except for—

    • Baseline changes such as increased trade agreement thresholds and addition of new qualifying countries);

    • Use of the term “micro-purchase threshold” rather than a specific dollar value, to provide more flexibility when the micro-purchase threshold increases;

    • Retaining the explicit statement that these restrictions only apply in the United States; and

    • Restructuring of the certifications in DFARS provision 252.225-7018. In each dollar range, the first paragraph is limited to a certification that the photovoltaic devices are domestic (or U.S.-made for paragraph (6)). This avoids the necessity of identifying the country of origin for such domestic or U.S.-made products.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule does not affect the applicability of DFARS clause 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices, and DFARS provision 252.225-7018, Photovoltaic Devices—Certification. A determination was signed by the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, on October 13, 2011, to not apply the requirements of section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011 to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, but to apply the rule to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items.

    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

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    This rule proposes to implement the repeal of section 858 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291), while retaining the requirements of section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2011, with regard to sources of contractor-purchased photovoltaic devices that become the property of DoD.

    The objective of this rule is to revert to the regulations on photovoltaic devices that were in effect prior to superimposing the additional regulations required by section 858 on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72599). By restoring the tie to the Buy American statute, this rule reinstates the Buy American exceptions for acquisitions below the micro-purchase threshold, nonavailabilty, unreasonable cost, and public interest, including the DoD class determinations that exempt U.S.-made and qualifying country photovoltaic devices from the requirement of the Buy American statute, as well as the Governmentwide determination that removes the component test for commercially-available off-the-shelf items.

    This rule generally applies at the prime contract level to other than small entities. When purchasing renewable power generated via on-site photovoltaic devices, DoD can either purchase the photovoltaic devices and thereby own, operate, and maintain the devices for their full economic life (already covered in DFARS part 225 under standard Buy American statute/Trade Agreements regulations) or, for example, may do some variation of the following:

    • Enter into an energy savings performance contract, which is a contracting method in which the contractor provides capital to facilitate energy conservation measures and maintains them in exchange for a portion of the energy savings generated. Under this arrangement, the Government would take title to the devices during contract performance or at the conclusion of the contract. For example, DoD uses either the master indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contract of the Department of Energy or the Army Corps of Engineers and awards task orders off one of those contracts. Generally, the same approved contractors are on each contract. Of the approved contractors, all except one are large businesses. There are subcontracting goals that each contractor has to meet, but the ultimate task order award is most often made to a large business.

    • Enter into a power purchase agreement, also referred to as a utility service contract, for the purchase of the power output of photovoltaic devices that are installed on DoD land or buildings, but owned, operated, and maintained by the contractor. At the conclusion of the contract, DoD would either require the contractor to dismantle and remove the photovoltaic equipment or abandon the equipment in place. Prime contractors for this type of contract would generally be large businesses, based on the capital costs involved in these projects. However, many developers tend to subcontract out the majority of work to smaller companies.

    There are approximately 80 manufacturers of photovoltaic devices. DoD does not currently have data available on whether any of the manufacturers of photovoltaic devices are small entities, because the Federal Procurement Data System does not collect such data on subcontractors.

    There are no new reporting burdens under this rule. In fact, there is a de minimis reduction in burden, because no certification will be required if the value of the photovoltaic devices does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold, and identification of country of origin will no longer be required if the photovoltaic devices are domestic or U.S.-made. Contracting officers will no longer be required to do a determination and findings in order to allow utilization of qualifying country or U.S.-made photovoltaic devices or other foreign photovoltaic devices on the bases of unreasonable cost. Furthermore, since the prime contractors subject to this rule are other than small businesses, the existing reporting requirements do not impact small entities.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    DoD did not identify any significant alternatives that meet the requirements of the statute and would have less impact on small entities. The overall effect of this rule is deregulatory and it does not have significant impact on small entities.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018-D007), in correspondence.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35); however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0229, entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and related clauses at DFARS 252.225.”

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 2. Amend section 212.301 by revising paragraphs (f)(ix)(J) and (K) to read as follows:
    212.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

    (f) * * *

    (ix) * * *

    (J) Use the clause at 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices, as prescribed in 225.7017-4(a), to comply with section 846 of Public Law 111-383.

    (K) Use the provision at 252.225-7018, Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate, as prescribed in 225.7017-4(b), to comply with section 846 of Public Law 111-383.

    PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 3. Amend section 225.7017-1 by revising the definitions of “Covered contract” and “Domestic photovoltaic device” to read as follows:
    225.7017-1 Definitions.

    Covered contract means an energy savings performance contract, a utility services contract, or a private housing contract awarded by DoD to be performed in the United States, if such contract results in DoD ownership of photovoltaic devices, by means other than DoD purchase as end products. DoD is deemed to own a photovoltaic device if the device is—

    (1) Installed in the United States on DoD property or in a facility owned by DoD; and

    (2) Reserved for the exclusive use of DoD in the United States for the full economic life of the device.

    Domestic photovoltaic device means a photovoltaic device that is manufactured in the United States.

    4. Revise section 225.7017-2 to read as follows:
    225.7017-2 Restriction.

    In accordance with section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, photovoltaic devices provided under any covered contract shall comply with 41 U.S.C. chapter 83, Buy American, subject to the exceptions to that statute provided in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).

    5. Revise section 225.7017-3 to read as follows:
    225.7017-3 Exceptions.

    DoD requires the contractor to utilize domestic photovoltaic devices in covered contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, with the following exceptions:

    (a) Qualifying country. Qualifying country photovoltaic devices may be utilized in any covered contract, because 225.103(a)(i)(A) provides an exception to the Buy American statute for products of qualifying countries, as defined in 225.003.

    (b) Buy American—unreasonable cost. For a covered contract that utilizes photovoltaic devices valued at less than $180,000, the exception for unreasonable cost may apply (see FAR 25.103(c). If the cost of a foreign photovoltaic device plus 50 percent is less than the cost of a domestic photovoltaic device, then the foreign photovoltaic device may be utilized.

    (c) Trade agreements.

    (1) Free Trade Agreements. For a covered contract that utilizes photovoltaic devices valued at $25,000 or more, photovoltaic devices may be utilized from a country covered under the acquisition by a Free Trade Agreement, depending upon dollar threshold (see FAR subpart 25.4).

    (2) World Trade Organization—Government Procurement Agreement. For covered contracts that utilize photovoltaic devices that are valued at $180,000 or more, only U.S.-made photovoltaic devices, designated country photovoltaic devices, or qualifying country photovoltaic devices may be utilized.

    225.7017-4 [Removed]
    6. Remove section 225.7017-4.
    225.7017-5 [Redesignated as 225.7017-4]
    7. Redesignate section 225.7017-5 as 225.7017-4 and in the newly redesignated section 225.7017-4, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    225.7017-4 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

    (a)(1) Use the clause at 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices, in solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, for a contract expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold that may be a covered contract, i.e., an energy savings performance contract, a utility service contract, or a private housing contract awarded by DoD, if such contract will result in DoD ownership of photovoltaic devices, by means other than DoD purchase as end products.

    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 8. Amend section 252.225-7017 by— a. In the introductory text, removing “225.7017-5(a)” and adding “225.7017-4(a)” in its place; b. Removing clause date “(JAN 2018)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; c. In paragraph (a)— i. Removing subparagraph designations “(i)” and “(ii)” and adding “(1)” and “(2)” in its place wherever it appears; ii. Removing subparagraph designations “(iii)” and “(iv)” and adding “(3)” and “(4)” in its place; iii. Revising the definition of “Domestic photovoltaic device”; d. In paragraph (b), removing “858 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291)” and adding “846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383)” in its place; and e. In paragraph (c)— i. Revising paragraph (c)(1); ii. In paragraph (c)(2), removing “photovoltaic device as specified, or,” and adding “photovoltaic device, or,” in its place; and iii. Revising paragraphs (c)(3), (4), and (5).

    The revisions read as follows:

    252.225-7017 Photovoltaic Devices.

    (a) * * *

    Domestic photovoltaic device means a photovoltaic device that is manufactured in the United States.

    (c) * * *

    (1) More than the micro-purchase threshold but less than $25,000, then the Contractor shall utilize only domestic photovoltaic devices unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of qualifying country or other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(2) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation;

    (3) $80,317 or more but less than $100,000, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only domestic photovoltaic devices, unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic devices (other than Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic devices), qualifying country photovoltaic devices, or other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(4) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device, then the Contractor shall utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device; or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic photovoltaic device;

    (4) $100,000 or more but less than $180,000, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only domestic photovoltaic devices, unless, in its offer, it specified utilization of Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic devices (other than Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic devices), qualifying country photovoltaic devices, or other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(5) of the Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device, then the Contractor shall utilize a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device; or, at the Contractor's option, a domestic photovoltaic device; or

    (5) $180,000 or more, then the Contractor shall utilize under this contract only U.S.-made, designated country, or qualifying country photovoltaic devices.

    (End of clause)
    9. Amend section 252.225-7018 by— a. In the introductory text, removing “225.7017-5(b)” and adding “225.7017-4(b)” in its place; b. Removing clause date “(JAN 2018)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); and d. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory text, and (d)(3) through (6).

    The revisions read as follows:

    252.225-7018 Photovoltaic devices—certificate.

    (b) * * *

    (1) If more than micro-purchase threshold but less than $180,000, then the Government will not accept an offer specifying the use of other foreign photovoltaic devices in paragraph (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(4)(ii), or (d)(5)(ii) of this provision, unless the offeror documents to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer that the price of the foreign photovoltaic device plus 50 percent is less than the price of a comparable domestic photovoltaic device.

    (2) If $180,000 or more, then the Government will consider only offers that utilize photovoltaic devices that are U.S.-made, qualifying country, or designated country photovoltaic devices.

    (d) * * *

    (1) No photovoltaic devices will be utilized in performance of the contract, or such photovoltaic devices have an estimated value that does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold.

    (2) If more than the micro-purchase threshold but less than $25,000—

    (3) If $25,000 or more but less than $80,317—

    (i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device;

    (ii) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a Canadian photovoltaic device or a qualifying country photovoltaic device [Offeror to specify country of origin _____]; or

    (iii) The foreign (other than Canadian or qualifying country) photovoltaic devices to be utilized in performance of the contract are the product of _____. [Offeror to specify country of origin, if known, and provide documentation that the cost of a domestic photovoltaic device would be unreasonable in comparison to the cost of the proposed foreign photovoltaic device, i.e. that the price of the foreign photovoltaic device plus 50 percent is less than the price of a comparable domestic photovoltaic device.]

    (4) If $80,317 or more but less than $100,000—

    (i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device;

    (ii) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Korean, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device [Offeror to specify country of origin _____]; or

    (iii) The offered foreign photovoltaic devices (other than those from countries listed in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this provision) are the product of _____. [Offeror to specify country of origin, if known, and provide documentation that the cost of a domestic photovoltaic device would be unreasonable in comparison to the cost of the proposed foreign photovoltaic device, i.e. that the price of the foreign photovoltaic device plus 50 percent is less than the price of a comparable domestic photovoltaic device.]

    (5) If $100,000 or more but less than $180,000—

    (i) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a domestic photovoltaic device;

    (ii) The offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be utilized in performance of the contract is a Free Trade Agreement country photovoltaic device (other than a Bahrainian, Moroccan, Panamanian, or Peruvian photovoltaic device) or a qualifying country photovoltaic device [Offeror to specify country of origin _____]; or

    (iii) The offered foreign photovoltaic devices (other than those from countries listed in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this provision) are the product of _____. [Offeror to specify country of origin, if known, and provide documentation that the cost of a domestic photovoltaic device would be unreasonable in comparison to the cost of the proposed foreign photovoltaic device, i.e. that the price of the foreign photovoltaic device plus 50 percent is less than the price of a comparable domestic photovoltaic device.]

    (6) If $180,000 or more, the Offeror certifies that each photovoltaic device to be used in performance of the contract is—

    (i) A U.S.-made photovoltaic device; or

    (ii) A designated country photovoltaic device or a qualifying country photovoltaic device. [Offeror to specify country of origin _____.]

    (End of provision)
    [FR Doc. 2018-18240 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 212, 247, and 252 [Docket DARS-2018-0040] RIN 0750-AJ94 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Modification of DFARS Clause “Transportation of Supplies by Sea” (DFARS Case 2018-D028) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to modify the text of an existing DFARS clause to include the text of another DFARS clause, in order to streamline instructions to contractors regarding notifications of transportation of supplies by sea.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018-D028, using any of the following methods:

    ○ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2018-D028”. Select “Submit a Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2018-D028” on any attached document. O Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2018-D028 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Carrie Moore, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571-372-6093.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This rule proposes to modify DFARS clause 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies By Sea, to include the instructions currently specified in DFARS clause 252.247-7024, Notification of Supplies By Sea. Combining these clauses will result in DFARS clause 252.247-7024 being removed.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    DFARS provision 252.247-7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation By Sea, is included in solicitations and requires an offeror to represent with its offer whether it anticipates that supplies will or will not be transported by sea in the performance of the contract.

    DFARS clause 252.247-7023 is included in all contracts, except for those that directly purchase ocean transportation services, and provides contractors with terms and conditions that apply when transporting supplies by sea under the contract.

    DFARS clause 252.247-7024, Notification of Transportation of Supplies By Sea, is included in contracts when the contractor indicated in DFARS provision 252.247-7022 that it did not anticipate transporting supplies by sea. The clause requires the contractor to notify the Government in the event that, during performance of the contract, the contractor learns that supplies will be transported by sea, and requires the contractor to comply with the terms and conditions in DFARS clause 252.247-7023.

    Since DFARS clause 252.247-7023 is included in all contracts, and DFARS clause 252.247-7024 is associated with the requirements of 252.247-7023, the text of the two clauses can be combined to help minimize the number of clauses contained in the contract, while still maintaining the intent of both clauses.

    The modification of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. The DoD Task Force reviewed the requirements of DFARS clause 252.247-7023 and 252.247-7024 and determined that the clauses could be combined.

    A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 35741 on August 1, 2017, and requested public input. Two respondents submitted a public comment on these clauses summarized as follows:

    Comment: Both respondents recommended DoD remove these clauses, as they are based on the requirements of the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631), which was written at a time before many modern forms of cargo transportation were invented and overly burdens the DoD supply chain to use US-flag ships. The respondents also suggested that DoD follow the less burdensome Cargo Preference Act of 1954 (46 U.S.C. 1241(b)).

    Response: DoD must comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2631. Currently, 10 U.S.C. 2631 requires 100 percent of all items for or owned by DoD that require transportation by sea be carried exclusively on U.S. flag vessels. This cargo policy helps retain and encourage a privately owned and operated U.S.-flag merchant marine, which benefits the U.S. in terms of trade and in times of emergency. It is not in the Government's best interests to rescind 10 U.S.C. 2631. In the event that a U.S.-flag vessel is not available for timely shipment or the freight charges are excessive or unreasonable, the clause permits the contractor to submit a request to use a foreign-flag vessel to the contracting officer. For this reason, DoD does not concur that the DoD supply chain is necessarily overburdened by this Act.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule does not create any new provisions or clauses. This rule merely consolidates existing instructions regarding notifications of transportation of supplies by sea in a single DFARS clause.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b). This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    V. Executive Order 13771

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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 the rule is not creating any new requirements or changing any existing requirements for contractors. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is proposing to modify DFARS clause 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies By Sea, to include the instructions currently specified in DFARS clause 252.247-7024, Notification of Supplies By Sea. Combining these clauses will result in DFARS clause 252.247-7024 being removed.

    The objective of this proposed rule is to streamline the instructions to contractors pertaining to the transportation of supplies by sea. The combination of these DFARS clauses supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force under Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.

    Based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System for fiscal year 2016, DoD awarded approximately 83,000 contract actions that included DFARS clause 252.247-7023 to 22,000 unique entities, of which approximately 39,000 awards (47 percent) were made to 15,000 unique small businesses entities (68 percent).

    This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses.

    This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the proposed objectives.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018-D028) in correspondence.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0245, titled: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 247, Transportation and Related Clauses.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 247, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 212, 247, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 212, 247, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
    212.301 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 212.301 by: a. Removing paragraph (f)(xix)(D); b. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(xix)(E) through (H) as paragraphs (f)(xix)(D) through (G), respectively; c. In the newly redesignated paragraph (f)(xix)(D), removing “247.574(d)” and adding “247.574(c)” in its place; d. In the newly redesignated paragraph (f)(xix)(E), removing “247.574(e)” and adding “247.574(d)” in its place; e. In the newly redesignated paragraph (f)(xix)(F), removing “247.574(f)” and adding “247.574(e)” in its place; and f. In the newly redesignated paragraph (f)(xix)(G), removing “U.S” and adding “U.S.” in its place. PART 247—TRANSPORTATION
    247.574 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 247.574 by: a. Removing paragraph (c); and b. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (c) through (e), respectively. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Amend section 252.247-7023 by: a. In the clause heading, removing the date “(APR 2014)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; b. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (i); c. Adding a new paragraph (h); and d. In the newly redesignated paragraphs (i)(1) and (2), removing “paragraph (h)” and adding “paragraph (i)” in both places; e. In Alternate I: i. In the clause heading, removing the date of “(APR 2014)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; ii. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (i); iii. Adding a new paragraph (h); and iv. In the newly redesignated paragraphs (i)(1) and (2), removing “paragraph (h)” and adding “paragraph (i)” in both places; f. In Alternate II— i. In the clause heading, removing the date of “(APR 2014)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; ii. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (i); iii. Adding a new paragraph (h); and iv. In the newly redesignated paragraphs (i)(1) and (2), removing “paragraph (h)” and adding “paragraph (i)” in both places.

    The additions read as follows:

    252.247-7023 Transportation of Supplies by Sea.

    (h) If the Contractor has indicated by the response to the solicitation provision, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, that it did not anticipate transporting by sea any supplies; however, after the award of this contract, the Contractor learns that supplies will be transported by sea, the Contractor—

    (1) Shall notify the Contracting Officer of that fact; and

    (2) Hereby agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of this clause.

    Alternate I. * * *

    (h) If the Contractor has indicated by the response to the solicitation provision, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, that it did not anticipate transporting by sea any supplies; however, after the award of this contract, the Contractor learns that supplies will be transported by sea, the Contractor—

    (1) Shall notify the Contracting Officer of that fact; and

    (2) Hereby agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of this clause.

    Alternate II. * * *

    (h) If the Contractor has indicated by the response to the solicitation provision, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, that it did not anticipate transporting by sea any supplies, but the contractor learns after the award of the contract that supplies will be transported by sea, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of that fact.

    252.247-7024 [Removed and Reserved]
    4. Remove and reserve section 252.247-7024.
    252.247-7025 [Amended]
    5. Amend section 252.247-7025, in the introductory text, by removing “247.574(d)” and adding “247.574(c)” in its place.
    252.247-7026 [Amended]
    6. Amend section 252.247-7026, in the introductory text, by removing “247.574(e)” and adding “247.574(d)” in its place.
    252.247-7027 [Amended]
    7. Amend section 252.247-7027, in the introductory text, by removing “247.574(f)” and adding “247.574(e)” in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18246 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 [Docket DARS-2018-0004] RIN 0750-AJ22 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Restrictions on Acquisitions From Foreign Sources (DFARS Case 2017-D011) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to apply domestic source requirements to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold when acquiring athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces, and add Australia and the United Kingdom to the definition of the “National Technology and Industrial Base.”

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D011, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2017-D011.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2017-D011” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2017-D011 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to implement the following two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328):

    A. Section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017

    Section 817 extends the domestic source requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the Berry Amendment) below the simplified acquisition threshold, when acquiring athletic footwear to be furnished to the members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces.

    B. Section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017

    Section 881(b) amends 10 U.S.C. 2500(1) by adding Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United States and Canada as the countries within which the activities of the national technology and industrial base are conducted. 10 U.S.C. 2534, Miscellaneous Limitations on the Procurement of Goods Other Than United States Goods, requires that DoD only procure certain items if the manufacturer of the items is part of the national technology and industrial base.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    This rule proposes to amend the DFARS as follows—

    A. Section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017

    Amends DFARS 225.7002(a) to ensure that purchases of athletic footwear valued at or below the SAT are not exempt from the Berry Amendment (i.e. shall be procured from domestic sources). A conforming change is made at DFARS 225.7002-3(a) to remove the phrase “that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold” in order to rely on the introductory text of the section, which qualifies all of the prescription in the section as inapplicable if an exception at DFARS 225.7002-2 applies.

    B. Section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017

    Modifies the following DFARS sections, which implement the restrictions of 10 U.S.C. 2534, to allow acquisition of certain items from Australia and the United Kingdom:

    • DFARS 225.7004, Restriction on acquisition of foreign buses.

    • DFARS 225.7005, Restriction on certain chemical weapons antidote.

    • DFARS 225.7006, Restriction on air circuit breakers for naval vessels.

    • DFARS 252.225-7037, Evaluation of Offers for Air Circuit Breakers.

    • DFARS 252.225-7038, Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers.

    Purchases from the United Kingdom were already authorized in the provision and clause through annual waivers, which cover air circuit breakers and certain other naval vessel components.

    In addition, this rule proposes to remove coverage at DFARS 225.7006-3(b) and 225.7006-4(a)(2) of the annual waiver for air circuit breakers for naval vessels from the United Kingdom, because waiver is no longer required.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule proposes to amend the applicability of existing DFARS solicitation provisions and contract clauses as follows:

    • To implement section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017, this rule proposes to extend use of DFARS clause 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities, to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) when buying athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces. This clause is already prescribed for use in solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items.

    • To implement section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017, this rule proposes to modify the provision at DFARS 252.225-7037, Evaluation of Offers for Air Circuit Breakers, and the clause at DFARS 252.225-7038, Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers, to add Australia as a country from which items restricted by 10 U.S.C. 2534 may be purchased. This rule does not change the prescriptions for the use of this provision or clause, which are already required for use in solicitations and contracts for commercial items, including COTS items. The clause does not apply below the SAT.

    • A. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the SAT

    41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the SAT. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.

    B. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items

    41 U.S.C. 1906 governs the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, and is intended to limit the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. 41 U.S.C. 1906 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt commercial item contracts, the provision of law will apply to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Likewise, 41 U.S.C. 1907 governs the applicability of laws to COTS items, with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy the decision authority to determine that it is in the best interest of the Government to apply a provision of law to acquisitions of COTS items in the FAR. The Director, DPC, is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.

    C. Determinations

    A determination under 41 U.S.C. 1905 is not required to prescribe DFARS 252.225-7012 for use in solicitations and contracts valued at or below the SAT, because section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017 specifically states that DoD shall acquire athletic footwear that complies with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2533a “without regard to the applicability of any simplified acquisition threshold under chapter 137 of title 10 (or any other provision of law).”

    A determination under 41 U.S.C. 1906 and 1907 is not required to apply the requirements of DFARS 252.225-7037 and 252.225-7038 to acquisitions for commercial items, including COTS items, because the statute that this provision and clause implements is not a covered statute subject to 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907. At the time of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) (Pub. L. 103-355), now codified in part at 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907, this provision and clause were a single clause, DFARS 252.225-7029, Restriction on Acquisition of Air Circuit Breakers, which implemented 10 U.S.C. 2534. Because 10 U.S.C. 2534 predated FASA, it was not subject to 41 U.S.C. 1905-1907. The DFARS clause 252.225-7029 was included on the initial list of statutes applicable to the acquisition of commercial items at DFARS 252.212-7001, incorporated in the DFARS by DFARS Case 95-D712 on November 30, 1995 (Defense Acquisition Circular 91-9).

    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

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    The reason for this rule is to implement sections 817 and 881(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328).

    The objectives of the rule are as follows:

    • To remove the exception to domestic source restriction of the Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 2533a) for acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold when buying athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces, as required by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017.

    • To allow acquisition of certain items from Australia and the United Kingdom, for which purchase is currently restricted to items from the United States or Canada, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2534, as amended by section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017.

    A. Section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2017

    This rule may apply to only a few small entities, because there are few sources that meet the domestic source requirements of the Berry Amendment with regard to athletic footwear. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) estimates a potential annual demand for approximately 200,000 to 250,000 pairs of athletic shoes to be delivered at the rate of approximately 27,500 pairs per month. In response to a request for information issued by DLA in December 2016, there were 5 responses from athletic footwear manufacturers, one of which was a small business. Small entities who are athletic shoe manufacturers could likely support portions of DoD's total requirements for athletic footwear. In addition, there are likely a number of domestic component suppliers who are small entities who would benefit from this new requirement as well. On the other hand, small entities that cannot provide athletic shoes that meet the domestic source requirements of the Berry Amendment, will no longer be able to compete for acquisition of athletic footwear at or below the simplified acquisition threshold that are for the purpose of providing athletic footwear to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces.

    B. Section 881(b) of the NDAA for FY 2017

    This rule will not apply to any small entities at the prime contract level, as there are only a few prime contractors for the restricted items, which are all U.S. firms that are other than small businesses. For the definition of “small business,” the Regulatory Flexibility Act refers to the Small Business Act, which in turn allows the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator to specify detailed definitions or standards (5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 15 U.S.C. 632(a)). The SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.105 discuss who is a small business: “(a)(1) Except for small agricultural cooperatives, a business concern eligible for assistance from SBA as a small business is a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor.” Therefore, if an item currently purchased from a U.S. entity that is other than a small business were to be purchased from an entity in the Australia or the United Kingdom, there could be an impact on a few small entities that are currently subcontractors to a U.S. prime contractor.

    There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements of this rule. The only compliance requirements are to furnish athletic footwear that complies with the Berry Amendment.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    By extending the restriction of the Berry Amendment to acquisitions that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, this rule may benefit small entities that can provide athletic footwear that is compliant with the Berry Amendment, because they may be more able to compete for smaller acquisitions.

    DoD was unable to identify any alternatives that would meet the requirements of the statutes.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2017-D011), in correspondence.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the 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 Parts 225 and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 2. Amend section 225.7002-2 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    225.7002-2 Exceptions.

    (a) Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, except for athletic footwear purchased by DoD for use by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces (section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328)).

    225.7002-3 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 225.7002-3, in paragraph (a) by removing “commercial items, that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold” and adding “commercial items” in its place.
    225.7004-1 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 225.7004-1 by removing “United States or Canada” and adding “United States, Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom” in its place.
    225.7004-3 [Amended]
    5. Amend section 225.7004-3 by: a. In paragraph (a) by removing “United States or Canada” and adding “United States, Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom” in its place wherever it appears. b. In paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) by removing “United States and Canada” and adding “United States, Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom” in its place wherever it appears.
    225.7005-1 [Amended]
    6. Amend section 225.7005-1, in the introductory text and paragraph (b), by removing “United States or Canada” and adding “United States, Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom” in its place in both places.
    225.7006-1 [Amended]
    7. Amend section 225.7006-1 by removing “United States or Canada” and adding “United States, Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom” in its place. 8. Revise section 225.7006-3 to read as follows:
    225.7006-3 Waiver.

    The waiver criteria at 225.7008(a) apply to this restriction.

    225.7006-4 [Amended]
    9. Amend section 225.7006-4 by: a. In paragraph (a)(2), removing “A waiver has been granted, other than the waiver for the United Kingdom, which has been incorporated into the provision” and adding “A waiver has been granted” in its place; and b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing “A waiver has been granted, other than the waiver for the United Kingdom, which has been incorporated into the clause” and adding “A waiver has been granted” in its place. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    252.225-7037 [Amended]
    10. Amend section 252.225-7037 by: a. Removing the provision date of “(JUN 2012)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; and b. In paragraphs (a) and (b), removing “outlying areas, Canada,” and adding “outlying areas, Australia, Canada,” in its place in both places.
    252.225-7038 [Amended]
    11. Amend section 252.225-7038 by: a. Removing the provision date of “(JUN 2005)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; and b. Removing “outlying areas, Canada,” and adding “outlying areas, Australia, Canada,” in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18245 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-ep-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 232, 242, and 252 [Docket DARS-2018-0042] RIN 0750-AJ28 Performance-Based Payments and Progress Payments (DFARS Case 2017-D019) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which addresses the preference for performance-based payments, and to streamline the performance-based payment process. DoD is also proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise progress payments and performance-based payments policies for DoD contracts in order to increase its business effectiveness and efficiency as well as to provide an opportunity for both small and other than small entities to qualify for increased customary progress payment rates and maximum performance-based payment rates based on whether the offeror/contractor has met certain performance criteria.

    DOD believes the proposed rule will eliminate the unintended consequences of not updating its contract financing policies (which, in turn will save hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers), will improve contractor performance, and will distinguish and meaningfully recognize high performing companies and divisions of companies, as the case may be.

    This rule proposes to relieve the administrative burden on contractors by deleting the current regulations relating to performance-based payments at DFARS subpart 232.10 and the associated clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012, Performance-Based Payments—Whole Contract Basis, and 252.232-7013, Performance-Based Payments—Deliverable Item Basis. This rule also removes the requirement to negotiate consideration due the Government for providing the contractor with the improved cash flow when utilizing performance-based payments.

    In addition to the request for written comments on this proposed rule, DoD will hold a public meeting to hear the views of interested parties.

    DATES:

    Comment Date: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    Public Meeting Date: The public meeting will be held on September 14, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST. Registration to attend this meeting must be received by September 6, 2018. Further information for the public meeting may be found under the heading SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held at the Mark Center Auditorium, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3603. The Mark Center Auditorium is located on level B-1 of the building.

    Submission of Comments: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D019, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2017-D019.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2017-D019” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2017-D019 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD (A&S) DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Amy Williams, DPC/DARS, at 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Meeting

    DoD is hosting a public meeting to obtain views of experts and interested parties in Government and the private sector regarding revising policies and procedures with regard to customary progress payment rates and maximum performance-based payment rates for DoD contracts.

    Registration: Individuals wishing to attend the public meeting must register by September 6, 2018, to ensure adequate room accommodations and to facilitate security screening and entry to the Mark Center. Individuals desiring to attend the meeting must register at this website, https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/performance-based_payments_and_progress_payments.html, by providing the following information:

    (1) Company or organization name.

    (2) Full name, valid email address, and telephone number of each person planning to attend, and whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. For each person, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency will send additional instructions to the email address provided at the time of registration in order for the individual to be approved for entry to the Mark Center.

    (3) Name, title, organizational affiliation of presenter, if desiring to make a presentation, limited to a 5-minute presentation per company or organization. This limitation may be subject to adjustment, depending on the number of entities requesting to present, in order to ensure adequate time for discussion.

    Once registered, attendees will be prompted by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency on building entry requirements.

    One valid government-issued photo identification card (i.e., driver's license or passport) will be required in order to enter the building.

    Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 45 minutes early to accommodate security procedures. Public parking is not available at the Mark Center.

    Presentations: If you wish to make a presentation, please submit an electronic copy of your presentation to [email protected] no later than September 10, 2018. When submitting presentations, provide presenter's name, organization affiliation, telephone number, and email address on the cover page. Please submit presentations only and cite “Public Meeting, DFARS Case 2017-D019” in all correspondence related to the public meeting. There will be no transcription at the meeting. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting.

    Special accommodations: The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for reasonable accommodations, sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Daniel Weinstein at 571-372-6105, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.

    The TTY number for further information is: 1-800-877-8339. When the operator answers the call, let them know the agency is the Department of Defense; the point of contact is Daniel Weinstein at 571-372-6105.

    Correspondence and Comments: Please cite “Public Meeting, DFARS Case 2017-D019” in all correspondence related to this public meeting. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting. To have a presentation considered as a public comment for the formation of the final rule, the presentation, or pertinent excerpts, must be submitted separately as a written comment as instructed in the paragraph titled “Submission of Comments” in ADDRESSES.

    II. Background A. Purpose

    The fundamental purpose of the rule change is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense in five domains while recognizing that its cash flow policy was outdated and costly to the tax payers. The five domains are:

    • On Time or Accelerated Contract Deliveries;

    • Contractor Quality;

    • Contractor Business Systems;

    • Increasing Contract Opportunities for Small Business and for the Blind and Severely Disabled; and

    • Receipt of Timely Quality Proposals.

    The present progress payment rate was established in an economic environment when interest rates were significantly higher than the historic lows that have been experienced over the past several years. As a result of the aforementioned, and because DoD desires to take an enterprise-wide view of contractor performance and to recognize and distinguish performance among the companies with which it deals, DoD is proposing to modify the customary progress payment rate for large businesses. DoD recognizes that small businesses do not have the borrowing power that large businesses have and, therefore, is not proposing a change to the basic customary progress payment for small business, which is 90 percent. In modifying the customary rate for large business, DoD is proposing to allow large and small business to achieve progress payment rates greater than the customary rates.

    The goal would be that a significant majority of the large and small businesses would eventually meet the desired level of enterprise-wide performance.

    In the case of large business, for progress payments, a two-step process:

    1. Modify the customary progress payment rate to 50 percent (effectively updating the premises of the Defense Financial and Investment Review (DFAIR) study to address today's business and market environment).

    2. Establish opportunities for recognizing contractor behaviors that align themselves with the performance objectives established in the five business domains that are important to the DoD such that large business contractors could potentially increase the rate determined in Step 1 and receive progress payments that can be as high as 95 percent of contract cost. The increased customary progress payment rate will be established for each company or company division as the case may be.

    B. Brief History

    The most comprehensive review of Government financing was the DFAIR study. One key recommendation from the DFAIR study was that interest cost should remain an unallowable cost and progress payment rates should be reset in the future based on changes in interest rates.” Between the DFAIR study in 1985 and 2001, the customary progress payment rate for other than small business was changed five times and was usually a somewhat delayed reaction to changes in interest rates in prior years. In 2001, the customary rate was increased from 75 percent to 80 percent and has remained unchanged ever since.

    In the rule making process it is customary to analyze the impact of the proposed rule versus the status quo and that traditional analysis is included in the regulatory cost analysis (see section V. of this preamble). However, DoD has been providing financing in excess of that warranted based on the historically low interest rates in effect since 2008. By modifying the customary progress payment rate to 50 percent, it will result in savings hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers by eliminating an unintended consequence of the past practice associated with providing contract financing in excess of what was necessary. In the future, contractors will have the opportunity to earn increased contract financing benefit through improved performance.

    III. Discussion and Analysis

    DoD is proposing to amend DFARS parts 232, 242, and 252 to revise how contract financing, in the form of progress payments and performance-based payments, is calculated and determined for DoD contracts.

    A. Current FAR and DFARS

    1. Progress payments. Currently, FAR 52.232-16, Progress Payments, sets a customary progress payment rate of 80 percent, except the rate is 85 percent for a small business, unless it is a letter contract. There is a statutory cap of 80 percent for letter contracts. DFARS 252.232-7004, DoD Progress Payment Rates, currently increases the FAR customary progress payment rate for small businesses to 90 percent (except for letter contracts).

    2. Performance-based payments. FAR 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments, sets a maximum performance-based rate of 90 percent of the contract price if on a whole contract basis, or 90 percent of the delivery item price if on a delivery item basis. DFARS 232.1004 provides procedures for analysis of proposed performance-based payments using the performance-based payments analysis tool, and also requires that the contractor provide consideration to the Government, if the performance-based payments payment schedule will be more favorable to the contractor than customary progress payments. DFARS 232.1005-70 prescribes the use of the provision at DFARS 252.232-7012, Performance-Based Payments—Whole Contract Basis, or the provision at DFARS 252.232-7013, Performance-Based Payments—Deliverable Item Basis.

    B. Proposed Changes

    1. Progress payments (DFARS 232.501-1(a) and 52.232-7004). DoD proposes a customary progress payment rate of 50 percent for other than small businesses and retains the 90 percent rate for small businesses, but provides criteria by which contractors can achieve a customary progress payment rate of up to 95 percent. However, if a contractor or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the contractor or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, then the contractor will not be eligible for any incentives and the customary progress payment rate will be 25 percent for that contractor.

    On December 1 of each year, a contractor, or higher-level owner of a contractor, may submit a representation as to which criteria it meets and request a higher customary progress payment rate. Based on the representation received, the Director of Defense Pricing and Contracting will determine the appropriate customary progress payment rate for the following calendar year, and that data will be entered into the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) by December 31.

    If a contractor fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for that contractor in CBAR will be 50 percent if the offeror is other than a small business and 90 percent if the offeror is a small business, unless the rate is 25 percent as provided in DFARS 232.501-1(a)(ii). If the offeror subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.

    The rate may be adjusted at any time during the year if it is subsequently determined that the representation provided by a contractor was not accurate.

    2. Performance-based payments (DFARS 232.1004(b)(2) and 252.232-70YY). For maximum performance-based payments, DoD proposes rates and procedures comparable to those for determining the customary progress payment rate. The same representation will be used to determine both the customary progress payment rate and the maximum performance-based payment rate.

    DoD proposes to amend DFARS 232.1004 to remove the procedures for analysis of proposed performance-based payments using the performance-based payments analysis tool, and also removes the requirement that the contractor provide consideration to the Government, if the performance-based payments payment schedule will be more favorable to the contractor than customary progress payments. The current solicitation provisions at DFARS 252.232-7012 and 252.232-7013 are no longer required and will be removed, thus reducing burden on contractors.

    3. Corrective action requests (DFARS 242.302(a)). One of the criteria to qualify for higher customary progress payments or maximum performance-based payments is that the offeror/contractor does not have any open level III or level IV corrective action requests. Because the DFARS does not currently address corrective action requests, a paragraph has been added at DFARS 242.302(a) to explain the different levels of corrective action requests.

    4. Withholding of payments (DFARS 242.7000 and 252.242-7005). DFARS 242.7000, Contractor business system deficiencies, and 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems, provide for withholding of payments (including progress and performance-based payments) when there are significant deficiencies in a required business system. However, the contracting officer will not withhold progress or performance-based payments from a contract that includes the clause 252.232-7004 or the provision 252.232-70YY, unless the contractor is receiving progress payments or performance-based payments under the contract at a rate specified in CBAR that includes the 10 percent incentive based on having acceptable business systems without significant deficiencies.

    5. Preference for performance-based payments. This rule also proposes to implement section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which modifies 10 U.S.C. 2307(b) to address preference for performance-based payments.

    IV. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items

    This rule proposes to amend the clause at DFARS 252.232-7004, DoD Progress Payment Rates, and adds a new provision at DFARS 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates. DFARS 252.232-7004 is used with FAR clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments, and DFARS 252.232-70YY is used with FAR provision 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments. The FAR provision and clause are not prescribed for use in contracts for the acquisition of commercial items or for acquisitions at or below the SAT. The DFARS provision and clause, therefore, will not be applied to commercial items or to contact actions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.

    V. Expected Costs and Benefits

    This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to implement changes to the progress payment and performance-based payment policies for DoD contracts by amending the section on customary progress payment rates at DFARS 232.501-1; adding new procedures for performance-based payments at 232.1003; amending the clause at 252.232-7004, DoD Customary Progress Payment Rates, and adding a new provision at 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates. This rule also proposes to delete the clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012, Performance-Based Payments—Whole Contract Basis, and 252.232-7013, Performance-Based Payments—Deliverable Item Basis.

    This rule will impact all offerors/contractors (large or small) seeking DoD contracts that offer progress payments or performance-based payments. Although there are added costs associated with submission of an annual representation, the contractors/offerors that can meet the criteria will qualify for substantial savings on interest payments, due to increased Government financing.

    The expected benefits are that the modified approach to the establishment of a performance-based cash flow environment will enable DoD to take an enterprise-wide view of contractor performance and to recognize and distinguish performance among the companies with which it deals. The goal would be that a significant majority of the large and small businesses would eventually meet the desired level of enterprise-wide performance. As a result of the improved industrial performance, DOD's efficiency and effectiveness will be improved thereby increasing the lethality of its fighting force and positively reforming DOD's business practices.

    A. Summary of Expected Costs to the Public. DoD has performed a regulatory cost analysis on this rule. The following is a summary of the estimated net public costs in millions, calculated in 2016 dollars in perpetuity at a 7-percent discount rate.

    Annualized at 7 percent: $5.5 million Present Value at 7 percent: $78.8 million

    B. Summary of Expected Transfers. The following is a summary of the expected transfer of interest costs/savings from the Government to the public, due to an expected net increase in progress payment and performance-based payment rates paid by the Government.

    1. Reduced Interest Payments by Contractors:

    Annualized at 7 percent: $60.2 million Present Value at 7 percent: $859.6 million

    2. Increased Interest Payments by Government:

    Annualized at 7 percent: $30.2 million Present Value at 7 percent: $431.8 million

    To access the complete Regulatory Cost Analysis, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, search for “DFARS Case 2017-D019”, click “Open Docket”, and view “Supporting Documents”.

    VI. 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 an economically significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    VII. Executive Order 13771

    This proposed rule is subject to E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. If finalized as proposed, this rule would be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. The E.O. 13771 status will be informed by public comment, so please share any data and/or analysis that would relate to the rule's potential to be considered a deregulatory action. Details on the expected costs and benefits can be found in section V of this preamble.

    VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD expects that this proposed rule may 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. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared and is summarized as follows:

    This rule revises progress payments and performance-based payments policies for DoD contracts, basing the payment rate on whether the offeror/contractor has met certain performance criteria. This rule also implements section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, which modifies 10 U.S.C. 2301(b) to address preference for performance-based payments.

    The objective of this rule is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of DoD in five domains: on time or accelerated contract deliveries, contractor quality, contractor business systems, increasing contract opportunities for small businesses and for the blind and severely disables, and receipt of timely quality proposals. The statutory basis is 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 10 U.S.C. 2301(b).

    This rule will apply to small entities that receive either progress payments or performance-based payments for noncommercial fixed-price contracts. There were 1,938 unique small entities receiving progress payments or performance-based payments in FY 2017.

    The rule provides an opportunity to submit a representation as to whether a small entity meets certain performance criteria, in order to obtain higher progress payments or performance-based payments. DoD estimates that the professional skill set necessary to prepare the representation annually will approximate 25 percent at the journeyman level, 60 percent at the senior level, and 15 percent at the executive/attorney level. DoD estimates an average of 13 hours per response from small entities. The rule also removes a burden of approximately one hour per entity, associated with paragraph (b) of DFARS subpart 32.10 and the associated clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012 and 252.232-7013, which this rule proposes to delete.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    DoD did not identify any significant alternatives that would meet the objectives of the rule. However, the rule provides certain advantages for small entities as the basic customary progress payment rate for small entities remains at 90 percent, with possible increase up to 95 percent. So, small entities can continue to get the same rate, even if they do not submit a representation or meet the criteria. Small entities are only asked to represent with regard to three criteria: timely delivery or performance, contractor quality, and contractor business systems.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2017-D019), in correspondence.

    IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Accordingly, DoD has submitted a request for approval of a revised information collection requirement 0704-0359, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 232, Contract Financing, and associated clauses at DFARS 252.232, to the Office of Management and Budget.

    A. Public Reporting Burden

    1. Public reporting burden for the collection of information proposed by this DFARS case 2017-D019 is estimated to average 28.8 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    The annual reporting burden estimated as follows:

    Respondents: 3,200.

    Responses per respondent: 1.

    Total annual responses: 3,200.

    Preparation hours per response: 28.8 hours.

    Total response Burden Hours: 92,027 hours.

    2. In addition, this information collection includes a pre-existing burden related to DFARS clause 252.232-7007 (800 hours, 1 response per respondent, 800 responses, 1 hour per response, for a total of 8,000 hours). Therefore, the total burden for 0704-0359, rounded, is as follows:

    Respondents: 4,000.

    Responses per respondent: 1.

    Total annual responses: 4,000.

    Preparation hours per response: 24 hours.

    Total response Burden Hours: 93,000 hours.

    B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or email [email protected], with a copy to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD (A&S) DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Comments can be received from 30 to 60 days after the date of this notice, but comments to OMB will be most useful if received by OMB within 30 days after the date of this notice.

    Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the DFARS, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. Williams, OUSD (A&S) DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2017-D019 in the subject line of the message.

    This rule also affects the information collection requirements at DFARS subpart 232.10 (and associated clauses at DFARS 252.232-7012 and 252.232-7013, currently approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0359. This rule proposes to remove these requirements.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 232, 242, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 232, 242, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 232, 242, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 232—CONTRACT FINANCING 2. Revise section 232.501-1 to read as follows:
    232.501-1 Customary progress payment rates.

    (a) Except for undefinitized contract actions as provided at FAR 32.501-1(d), in lieu of the customary progress payment rates specified at FAR 32.501-1(a), the customary progress payment rates for DoD solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2019, and resultant contracts, including contracts that contain foreign military sales (FMS) requirements, are 50 percent for other than small businesses and 90 percent for small businesses, unless a different rate is specified for the contractor in the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) at [details TBD].

    (i) Contractors can qualify for an increased customary progress payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:

    (A) Other than small businesses:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    10 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 10 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See 242.302(a). 10 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies. 7.5 At least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year, when responding to solicitations that required submission of certified cost or pricing data, met the due date in the request for proposal and complied with the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (252.215-7009). 5 Has met its small business subcontracting goals during the preceding Government fiscal year. 2.5 Has provided subcontracting opportunities for AbilityOne [details TBD].

    (B) Small businesses:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    2 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 2 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See 242.302(a). 1 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies.

    (ii) However, if a contractor or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the contractor or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the contractor will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the customary progress payment rate will be 25 percent for that contractor.

    (iii)(A) On or before December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (a)(ii) of this section, a contractor, or a higher-level owner of a contractor, may submit to [email address TBD] a representation as to which criteria specified in paragraph (a)(i) of this section the contractor meets, and request a higher customary progress payment rate on that basis.

    (1) If a representation is made on behalf of multiple business segments, the representation must address the criteria in paragraph (a)(i) of this section for each business segment for which higher customary progress payment rates are requested.

    (2) If the size status of a contractor varies dependent upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the acquisition, the contractor may submit a representation and request for higher customary progress payment rates that addresses the rates for both a small business and an other than small business.

    (3) A separate representation is not required to also request a higher maximum performance-based payment rate (see 232.1001(b)(2)).

    (B) The representation is required to be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and must at a minimum include—

    (1) The unique entity identifier and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) of the contractor;

    (2) Size status of the contractor (small, other than small, or varies dependent upon the NAICS code of the acquisition); and

    (3) Identification of the criteria for which the contractor is requesting increase in the customary progress payment rate for the following calendar year. It is not necessary to submit supporting data with the representation, but the contractor is required to provide such data upon request.

    (iv) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate customary progress payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the customary progress payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.

    (v) If a contractor fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for that contractor in CBAR will be 50 percent if the contractor is other than a small business and 90 percent if the contractor is a small business, unless the rate is 25 percent as provided in (a)(ii) of this section. If the contractor subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.

    (vi) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by a contractor was not accurate.

    3. Add new section 232.502-4 heading to read as follows:
    232.502-4 Contract clauses.
    4. Amend section 232.502-4-70 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    232.502-4-70 Additional clauses.

    (b) Use the clause at 252.232-7004, DoD Customary Progress Payment Rates, in solicitations and contracts that include FAR 52.232-16. Do not use Alternate I of FAR 52.232-16.

    5. Amend section 232.503-6 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    232.503-6 Suspension or reduction of payments.

    (b) Contractor noncompliance.

    (i) If the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation in accordance with 232.501-1(a) is inaccurate, the progress payment rate in CBAR will be adjusted.

    (ii) See also 242.7502(c).

    6. Amend section 232.1001 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    232.1001 Policy.

    (a) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2307(b)(2), performance-based payments shall not be conditioned upon costs incurred in contract performance, but on the achievement of performance outcomes.

    7. Amend section 232.1004 by— a. Revising paragraph (b); and b. Adding a new paragraph (S-70).

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    232.1004 Procedures.

    (b) Establishing performance-based finance payment amounts.

    (2) In lieu of the 90 percent maximum rate specified in the FAR for performance-based payments, the maximum rates for DoD performance-based payments in solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2019, are 50 percent for other than small businesses and 90 percent for small businesses, unless a different rate is specified for the offeror in the Contract Business Analysis Repository [details TBD].

    (A) Offerors can qualify for an increased maximum performance-based payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:

    (1) Other than small businesses:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    10 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 10 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See 242.302(a). 10 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies. 7.5 At least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year, when responding to solicitations that required submission of certified cost or pricing data, met the due date in the request for proposal and complied with the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (252.215-7009). 5 Has met its small business subcontracting goals during the preceding Government fiscal year. 2.5 Has provided subcontracting opportunities for the blind and severely disabled [details TBD].

    (2) Small businesses:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    2 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 2 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See 242.302(a). 1 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies.

    (B) However, if an offeror or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the offeror or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the offeror will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the maximum performance-based payment rate will be 25 percent for that offeror.

    (C)(1) On December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(B) of this section, an offeror, or a higher-level owner of an offeror, may submit to [email address TBD] a representation as to which criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)(A) of this section the offeror meets, and request a higher customary progress payment rate on that basis.

    (i) If a representation is made on behalf of multiple business segments, the representation must address the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(A) of this section for each business segment for which higher customary progress payment rates are requested.

    (ii) If the size status of an offeror varies dependent upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the acquisition, the offeror may submit a representation and request for a higher customary progress payment rate that addresses the rates for both a small business and an other than small business.

    (iii) A separate representation is not required to also request a higher maximum performance-based payment rate (see 232.501-1(a)).

    (2) The representation is required to be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and must at a minimum include—

    (i) The unique entity identifier and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) of the offeror;

    (ii) Size status of the offeror (small, other than small, or varies dependent upon the NAICS code of the acquisition); and

    (iii) Identification of the criteria for which the offeror is requesting increase in the customary progress payment rate for the following calendar year. It is not necessary to submit supporting data with the representation, but the offeror is required to provide such data upon request.

    (D) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate maximum performance-based payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the maximum performance-based payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.

    (E) If an offeror fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for that offeror in CBAR will be 50 percent if the offeror is other than a small business and 90 percent if the offeror is a small business, unless the rate is 25 percent as provided in (b)(2)(B) of this section. If the offeror subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.

    (F) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by an offeror was not accurate.

    (S-70) Eligibility for performance-based payments. Nontraditional defense contractors and other private sector companies shall be eligible for performance-based payments, consistent with best commercial practices. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2307(b), a contractor's accounting system shall be in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in order to receive performance-based payments. 10 U.S.C. 2307 does not grant the Defense Contract Audit Agency the authority to audit compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

    8. Revise section 232.1005-70 to read as follows:
    232.1005-70 Solicitation provision.

    Use the provision 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates, in solicitations that include FAR 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments.

    PART 242—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 9. Amend section 242.302 by adding paragraph (a) text to read as follows:
    242.302 Contract administration functions.

    (a) Government personnel performing contract administration duties outlined in FAR 42.302(a) and this paragraph issue a corrective action request when contractual noncompliance is independently identified. The Defense Contract Management Agency had identified four levels of corrective action requests.

    (i) Level I is issued for noncompliances that are minor in nature, are promptly corrected by the contractor, and present no need for root cause determination or further preventive action.

    (ii) Level II is issued for noncompliances that are not promptly correctable and warrant root cause analysis and preventive action, or need action by the contractor to determine if other product/services are affected.

    (iii) Level III is issued to the contractor's management responsible for the company or business segment to call attention to a serious noncompliance, a significant deficiency pursuant to 252.242-7005(b), a failure to respond to a lower level corrective action request, or to remedy recurring noncompliance.

    (iv) Level IV is issued to the contractor's segment or corporate management and when the contractual noncompliance(s) is of a serious nature or when a Level III corrective action request has been ineffective.

    (v) For additional information on corrective action requests, see PGI 242.302(a).

    10. Amend section 242.7000 by revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    242.7000 Contractor business system deficiencies.

    (b) * * *

    (1) In accordance with agency procedures, identify one or more covered contracts containing the clause at 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems, from which payments will be withheld, except that, if a contract includes the clause 252.232-7004, DoD Customary Progress Payments, or the provision 252.232-70YY, DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payments, the contracting officer shall not withhold progress payments or performance based payments from that contract unless the contractor is receiving progress payments or performance-based payments under the contract at a rate specified in Contract Business Analysis Repository that includes the 10 percent incentive based on having acceptable business systems without significant deficiencies (see 232.501-1(a)). * * *

    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 11. Revise section 252.232-7004 to read as follows:
    252.232-7004 DoD Customary Progress Payment Rates.

    As prescribed in 232.502-4-70(b), use the following clause:

    DoD Customary Progress Payment Rates (Date)

    (a) The Progress Payments clause of this contract is modified to change each mention of the progress payment rate and liquidation rate in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(6), and (b) to 50 percent if the Contractor is other than a small business and 90 percent if the Contractor is a small business, unless a different rate is specified for the Contractor in the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) at [details TBD]. The limitations on undefinitized contract actions in paragraph (k) of the Progress Payments clause remain at a maximum of 80 percent for both the progress payment rate and the liquidation rate, notwithstanding any higher rate specified in CBAR.

    (b) If the Contractor has a satisfactory record of performance, the Contractor can qualify for an increased customary progress payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:

    (1) If the Contractor is other than a small business:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    10 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 10 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See DFARS 242.302(a). 10 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies. 7.5 At least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year, when responding to solicitations that required submission of certified cost or pricing data, met the due date in the request for proposal and complied with the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (252.215-7009). 5 Has met its small business subcontracting goals during the preceding Government fiscal year. 2.5 Has provided subcontracting opportunities for AbilityOne [details TBD].

    (2) If the Contractor is a small business:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    2 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 2 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See DFARS 242.302(a). 1 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies.

    (c) However, if the Contractor or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the Contractor or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the Contractor will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the customary progress payment rate will be 25 percent.

    (d)(1) On December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this clause, the Contractor, or a higher-level owner of the Contractor, may submit to [email address TBD] a representation as to which criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this clause the Contractor meets, and request a higher customary progress payment rate on that basis.

    (i) If a representation is made on behalf of multiple business segments, the representation shall address the criteria in paragraph (b) of this clause for each business segment for which higher customary progress payment rates are requested. Business segments that meet the same criteria may be grouped together.

    (ii) If the size status of the Contractor varies dependent upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the acquisition, the Contractor may submit a representation and request for a higher customary progress payment rate that addresses the rates for both a small business and an other than small business.

    (iii) A separate representation is not required to also request a higher maximum performance-based payment rate (see DFARS 232.1004(b)(2)).

    (2) The representation shall be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and shall at a minimum include—

    (i) The unique entity identifier and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) of the Contractor;

    (ii) The size status of the Contractor (small, other than small, or varies dependent upon the NAICS code of the acquisition); and

    (iii) Identification of the criteria for which the Contractor is requesting increase in the customary progress payment rate for the following calendar year. It is not necessary to submit supporting data with the representation, but the Contractor is required to provide such data upon request.

    (3) The template in paragraph (h) of this clause may be used for the submission of the request and representation.

    (e) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate customary progress payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the customary progress payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.

    (f) If the Contractor fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for the Contractor in CBAR will be 50 percent if the Contractor is other than a small business and 90 percent if the Contractor is a small business, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this clause. If the Contractor subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.

    (g) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by a contractor was not accurate.

    (h) Template.

    BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EP24AU18.323 EP24AU18.324 EP24AU18.325 EP24AU18.326 EP24AU18.327 (End of clause)
    252.232-7012 [Removed and Reserved]
    12. Remove and reserve section 252.232-7012.
    252.232-7013 [Removed and Reserved]
    13. Remove and reserve section 252.232-7013. 14. Add new section 252.232-70YY to read as follows:
    252.232-70YY DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates.

    As prescribed in 232.1005-70, use the following provision:

    DoD Maximum Performance-Based Payment Rates (Date)

    (a) The Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments provision in this solicitation is modified to change the maximum performance-based payment rate in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of that provision to 50 percent if the Offeror is other than small business and 90 percent if the Offeror is a small business, unless a different rate is specified for the Offeror in the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) at [details TBD].

    (b) If the Offeror has a satisfactory record of performance, the Offeror can qualify for an increased maximum performance-based payment rate of up to 95 percent, based on the following criteria:

    (1) If the Offeror is other than small business:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    10 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 10 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See DFARS 242.302(a). 10 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies. 7.5 At least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year, when responding to solicitations that required submission of certified cost or pricing data, met the due date in the request for proposal and complied with the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (252.215-7009). 5 Has met its small business subcontracting goals during the preceding Government fiscal year. 2.5 Has provided subcontracting opportunities for AbilityOne [details TBD].

    (2) If the Offeror is a small business:

    Additional
  • percentage
  • Criteria
    2 Met the contract delivery dates for contract end items and contract data requirements lists or performance milestone schedule, as the case may be, at least 95 percent of the time during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1 through September 30). 2 Does not have open level III or IV corrective action requests. See DFARS 242.302(a). 1 All applicable contractor business systems are acceptable, without significant deficiencies.

    (c) However, if the Offeror or any of its principals has within the preceding Government fiscal year been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against the Offeror or any of its principals for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property, the Offeror will not be eligible for any of the above incentives and the maximum performance-based payment rate will be 25 percent.

    (d)(1) On December 1 of each year, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this provision, the Offeror, or a higher-level owner of the Offeror, may submit to [email address TBD] a representation as to which criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this provision it meets, and request a higher maximum performance-based payment rate on the basis of the applicable criteria.

    (i) If a representation is made on behalf of multiple business segments, the representation shall address the criteria in paragraph (b) of this provision for each business segment for which higher customary progress payment rates are requested. Business segments that meet the same criteria may be grouped together.

    (ii) If the size status of the Offeror varies dependent upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the acquisition, the Offeror may submit a representation and request for a higher customary progress payment rate that addresses the rates for both a small business and an other than small business.

    (iii) A separate representation is not required to also request a higher customary progress payment rate (see DFARS 232.501-1(a)).

    (2) The representation shall be executed by a person authorized to sign for the entity submitting the representation and shall at a minimum include—

    (i) The unique entity identifier and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) of the Offeror;

    (ii) The size status of the Offeror (small, other than small, or varies dependent upon the NAICS code of the acquisition); and

    (iii) Identification of the criteria for which the Offeror is requesting increased maximum performance-based payment rate for the following calendar year. It is not necessary to submit supporting data with the representation, but the Offeror shall provide such data upon request.

    (3) The template in paragraph (h) of this clause may be used for the submission of this request and representation.

    (e) Based on the representation received, the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, will determine the appropriate maximum performance-based payment rate(s) for the following calendar year. DoD will enter the maximum performance-based payment rate(s) into CBAR by December 31.

    (f) If the Offeror fails to submit by the December 1 deadline, then the rate for the Offeror in CBAR will be 50 percent if the Offeror is other than a small business and 90 percent if the Offeror is a small business, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this provision. If the Offeror subsequently submits a representation after the December 1 deadline, any increase in rates will not be effective in CBAR until 30 days after submission.

    (g) The rate(s) may be adjusted at any time during the year if the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, subsequently determines that the representation provided by the Offeror was not accurate.

    (h) Template.

    BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EP24AU18.328 EP24AU18.329 EP24AU18.330 EP24AU18.331 EP24AU18.332 (End of provision)
    15. Amend section 252.242-7005 by— a. Removing the clause date of “(FEB 2012)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; b. In paragraph (d)(2) removing “withhold payments” and adding “withhold payments, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this clause” in its place; c. Redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (f) and (g); and d. Adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 252.242-7005 Contractor Business Systems.

    (e) The requirements in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this clause regarding withholding of amounts due from progress payments and performance-based payments do not apply unless the Contractor is receiving progress payments or performance-based payments under this contract at a rate specified in CBAR that includes the 10 percent incentive based on having acceptable business systems without significant deficiencies.

    [FR Doc. 2018-18238 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 236 [Docket DARS-2018-0039] RIN 0750-AJ75 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Exemption From Design-Build Selection Procedures (DFARS Case 2018-D011) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that allows for more than five offerors on solicitations issued using two-phase design-build selection procedures for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts that exceed $4 million.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 23, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018-D011, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2018-D011”. Select “Submit a Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2018-D011” on any attached document.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2018-D011 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Heather Kitchens, OUSD(A&S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Heather Kitchens, telephone 571-372-6104.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91). Section 823 amends 10 U.S.C. 2305a to allow for more than the maximum number of five offerors when a solicitation is issued using two-phase design-build selection procedures for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that exceeds $4 million.

    Prior to the amendments made by section 823, 10 U.S.C. 2305a required the head of the contracting activity to approve the contracting officer's justification that it is in the best interest of the Government to exceed the maximum number of five offerors that may be selected to submit phase-two proposals, if certain conditions apply. Section 823 eliminates the requirement for such a justification when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract that exceeds $4 million.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    The two-phase design-build selection procedures authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2305a are implemented at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3. The statutory requirement for a contracting officer to justify exceeding the maximum number of five offerors is implemented at FAR 36.303-1(a)(4). This rule proposes to implement section 823 by adding a new DFARS section 236.303-1(a)(4), to be used in lieu of the procedures at FAR 36.303-1(a)(4). The new DFARS section implements 10 U.S.C. 2305a, as amended by section 823, by providing—

    • The new authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract that exceeds $4 million;

    • The authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the contracting officer's decision is approved by the head of the contracting activity when the solicitation is for a contract that exceeds $4 million; and

    • A statement that the number of offerors is at the contracting officer's discretion when the solicitation is for a contract that does not exceed $4 million.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule does not propose to create any new provisions or clauses or impact any existing provisions or clauses.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (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 is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Executive Order 13771

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to 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 the scope of the rule only changes internal Government operating procedures for the design-build selection procedures. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    This rule proposes to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) to implement section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91). Section 823 amends 10 U.S.C. 2305a to allow contracting officers to exceed the maximum number of five offerors for solicitations issued using two-phase design-build selection procedures for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that exceed $4 million.

    The objective of this rule is to implement the statutory changes to the two-phase design-build selection procedures by adding a new DFARS section 236.303-1(a)(4), to be used in lieu of Federal Acquisition Regulation 23.303-1(a)(4). The new DFARS section provides—

    • The new authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract that exceeds $4 million;

    • The authority to exceed the five offeror maximum when the contracting officer's decision is approved by the head of the contracting activity when the solicitation is for a contract that exceeds $4 million; and

    • A statement that the number of offerors is at the contracting officer's discretion when the solicitation is for a contract that does not exceed $4 million.

    The legal basis for this rule is section 823 of the NDAA for FY 2018.

    Based on FY 2017 data from the Federal Procurement Data System, DoD issued approximately 499 new awards for construction exceeding $4 million, to include IDIQ contracts, purchase orders, and orders under basic ordering agreements. Of the 499 new awards for construction, approximately 305 awards were made to 252 unique small businesses entities.

    This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities. However, this rule may create additional opportunities for small entities, because the rule allows the maximum number of offerors selected to submit phase-two proposals to exceed five, when the solicitation is for an IDIQ contract valued at greater than $4 million, without requiring additional justification or approval.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the requirements of the applicable statute.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018-D011), in correspondence.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the 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 236

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR 236 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 236—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    2. Add subpart 236.3 to read as follows: Subpart 236.3—Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures Sec. 236.303-1 Phase One Subpart 236.3—Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures
    236.303-1 Phase One.

    (4) In lieu of the requirements at FAR 36.303-1(a)(4)—

    (i) If the contract value exceeds $4 million, the maximum number of offerors specified in the solicitation that are to be selected to submit phase-two proposals shall not exceed five, unless—

    (A) The solicitation is issued for an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract for design-build construction; or

    (B) The head of the contracting activity, delegable to a level no lower than the senior contracting official within the contracting activity, approves the contracting officer's decision with respect to an individual solicitation, that a maximum number greater than five is in the best interest of the Government and is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the two-phase selection procedures. The decision shall be documented in the contract file (10 U.S.C 2305a(d)).

    (ii) If the contract value is at or below $4 million, the maximum number of offerors specified in the solicitation that are to be selected to submit phase-two proposals is at the discretion of the contracting officer.

    [FR Doc. 2018-18243 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06ep-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Parts 1002, 1012, 1104, 1110, 1111, 1113, 1130, 1132, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1182, 1244, 1312, and 1313 [Docket No. EP 747] Payment, Filing, and Service Procedures AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) proposes to modify its rules pertaining to certain payment, filing, and service procedures. Many of these rules are outdated and do not reflect current technology. As explained in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Board proposes updating its regulations relating to methods of payment, filing procedures, electronic service of Board decisions, and fees for copying, printing, and related services. The proposed updates are intended to promote increased use of electronic filing and payment systems and result in cost savings to both the Board and the public, while enhancing the accessibility of information relating to proceedings and functions of the Board.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's website at “www.stb.gov” at the “E-FILING” link. Any person submitting a filing in paper format should send an original and 10 paper copies of the filing to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 747, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. Written comments and replies will be posted on the Board's website and can also be obtained by contacting the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC) at [email protected] or (202) 245-0238.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Fancher, (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Board proposes to modify and update its rules pertaining to certain payment, filing, and service procedures. The Board proposes to update these rules pursuant to a recommendation of its Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF), which was established to comply with the spirit of Executive Order 13,777. The RRTF's mission is to identify Board rules and practices that are burdensome, unnecessary, or outdated and to recommend how they should be addressed. See Regulatory Reform Task Force, EP 738 (STB served June 20, 2017). In a status report issued in May 2017, the RRTF identified the Board's payment and filing procedures as a potential area for reform and, following stakeholder input, recommended in its November 2017 status report that the Board update procedural and filing rules that are in need of modernization.1 As explained further below, the Board proposes changes relating to methods of payment, filing procedures, electronic service of Board decisions, and fees for copying, printing, and related services.

    1 These status reports can both be accessed on the Board's website at https://www.stb.gov/stb/about/RRTF.html.

    Methods of Payment. a. Filing Fees (Generally Applicable)

    Currently, the Board's generally applicable regulation on filing fees provides that fees may be paid in one of the following manners: By billing account, check, money order, or credit card. 49 CFR 1002.2(a). That regulation further provides that, except as specified in section 1002.2, all filing fees are payable at the time and place that the document is tendered for filing. 49 CFR 1002.2(a)(1).

    The Board proposes two modifications to its generally applicable filing fee regulation at 49 CFR 1002.2. First, the Board proposes to add an electronic payment option at 49 CFR 1002.2(a). The electronic payment option would be a convenient and quick method for the payment of fees to the Board and would facilitate increased use of electronic filing (e-filing) as described below in the discussion of filing procedures.

    The Board would implement electronic payment through Pay.gov, a website operated by the Department of Treasury and used by many federal agencies.2 The Pay.gov service is a “fast way to make secure electronic payments” to various federal agencies.3 Pay.gov currently allows payment through the following four methods, all of which the Board would accept: Bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards with a MasterCard or Visa logo, and digital wallet.4 As discussed below in the section on filing procedures, parties filing pleadings electronically would be required to submit payments electronically, and all other filers would be encouraged to do so. A link to Pay.gov would be available on the Board's website. In addition, the Pay.gov website would have a page for the Board, with links to make user fee payments.5 Once filers access the Board's page on the Pay.gov website, specific instructions for processing payments would be provided.

    2 The Board may revise its electronic payment processing system in the future as new payment methods become available.

    3Pay.gov, https://www.pay.gov/public/home (last visited May 2, 2018.)

    4 For more information on Pay.gov's methods of payment and limits on the maximum dollar amounts allowed for each method of payment, see https://www.pay.gov/WebHelp/HTML/about.html, and click on “About Payments.”

    5 The Pay.gov website lists all agencies that accept payments on Pay.gov and provides a link for forms to make various payments.

    Second, the Board proposes to eliminate the options of using billing accounts and making payments by credit card directly to the Board, although, as noted, parties will still be able to make credit card payments using Pay.gov.6 Given the availability of electronic payments, billing accounts and payment by credit card directly to the Board are no longer necessary or efficient. These proposed changes would provide filers with a modern, efficient payment option, and, as described below, facilitate the increased use of electronic filing. In addition, the changes would ensure more timely payments of the Board's various fees, would provide a more secure method of payment, and would simplify the Board's accounting procedures. Under the proposed rules, those that have previously used accounts or paid by credit card directly to the Board would have the option of using the Board's electronic payment option (described above) or any of the Board's remaining payment methods (check or money order).

    6 The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1002.1(h) state that the Board also accepts “currency . . . in accordance with 49 CFR 1002.2(a)(3).” However, § 1002.2(a)(3) provides that fees are to be paid by check or money order “payable in United States currency.” Therefore, to resolve this inconsistency, the Board proposes to remove “currency” from § 1002.1 to conform to § 1002.2(a).

    b. Filing Fees for Recordations

    The Board currently accepts payments associated with recordations of security interests 7 in the same manner as noted above: By billing account, check, money order, or credit card. See 49 CFR 1002.2(a) (filing fees for documents submitted for recording may be charged to accounts); see also 49 CFR 1177.3. The Board proposes to modify this practice and the language at section 1002.2(a) to be consistent with the proposed changes described above. Although recordations can already be submitted to the Board through e-filing, these proposed changes are necessary for the Board to eliminate entirely the options of billing accounts and credit cards in order to simplify the Board's accounting procedures. As discussed below in the section on filing procedures, parties filing recordations electronically would be required to submit payments electronically; parties filing recordations in paper form would be encouraged to submit payments electronically as well.

    7See 49 U.S.C. 11301(a) (requiring a security interest in “vessels, railroad cars, locomotives, or other rolling stock, or accessories used on such railroad cars, locomotives, or other rolling stock (including superstructures and racks), intended for a use related to interstate commerce” to be filed with the Board to perfect the security interest).

    c. Filing Fees for Water Carrier Tariffs and Contract Summaries

    The Board's regulations also establish the method of payment for filing water carrier tariffs and contract summaries. Specifically, the tariff or contract summary must be accompanied by the filing fee, the account number to be billed, or the credit card to be charged. 49 CFR 1312.4(a)(2)(iii), section 1313.4(a)(3)(iii); see also 49 CFR 1002.2(a) (filing fees for tariffs and contract summaries may be charged to accounts); section 1002.2(b) (providing that the Board may reject a tariff filing filed without the fee if the filer repeatedly fails to submit the appropriate fee).

    The Board proposes to make changes to these regulations to correspond to the changes described above that are being proposed for section 1002.2. The proposed regulations would eliminate the option of and references to billing accounts and payment by credit card directly to the Board, and would add an option of electronic billing through Pay.gov.8 Although both water carrier tariffs and contract summaries are often already submitted electronically to the Board,9 these changes are necessary for the Board to eliminate entirely the options of billing accounts and credit cards in order to simplify the Board's accounting procedures.

    8 The Board would also update an obsolete address at 49 CFR 1312.4, as well as an obsolete address and telephone number at 49 CFR 1012.2(a) and § 1012.3(b)(5). The Board also proposes to remove obsolete language in 49 CFR 1132.1.

    9 This decision does not propose to change how water carrier tariffs and contract summaries are currently submitted to the Board; rather, it would change only the available methods of payment. Persons who wish to pay the relevant fee using Pay.gov would, under this proposal, provide the transaction number (as described below in the section E-Filing) with their submission.

    Filing Procedures a. E-Filing

    The Board is also proposing changes to increase the use of e-filing. The Board's current filing procedures for pleadings, found at 49 CFR 1104.1 and described in more detail on the Board's website,10 prohibit e-filing in three circumstances: (1) Initial filings in a proceeding; (2) any filings (except recordations) 11 with associated fees; and (3) large filings in excess of 100 megabytes. If paper filings are submitted, the original and 10 copies must generally be submitted to the Board,12 along with any required payment in the manner prescribed by 49 CFR 1002.2. The first and second of these limitations exist to allow the Board to confirm payment before it accepts a filing, while the third limitation exists due to file size limitations in the Board's e-filing program.

    10 Procedures regarding filing and payment can be found on the Board's website at www.stb.gov under the tab “E-Filing,” and also under the tab “Public Information” and then “Resources.” Under this proposal, the Board's website would continue to contain relevant filing and payment information.

    11 In addition to pleadings, recordations are currently submitted via e-filing. See 49 CFR 1177.2 (documents to be recorded may be submitted “via the Board's website”).

    12 The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1104.3(a) require 10 copies, unless otherwise specifically directed by another Board regulation or notice in an individual proceeding.

    Under the proposal, e-filing would be permitted for all pleadings and recordations (100 megabytes or less). The proposed rules at section 1002.2(a) would require that any fees associated with e-filings be paid electronically, allowing the Board to confirm payment via its electronic payment processer when it receives an e-filing. These modifications would eliminate the need to require paper filings for initial pleadings and fee-related pleadings that are e-filed. The proposed rules at section 1104.1 would also be revised to reflect that change, and would direct filers to the Board's website for details regarding permissible formats, acceptable signature formats, and other information. However, the Board would continue to require that large filings in excess of 100 megabytes be filed in paper form at this time. The Board may also require alternative filing procedures in particular cases.

    To utilize e-filing, a filer would first pay any required fee via electronic payment on the Pay.gov website. Once the payment has been submitted, a confirmation email from Pay.gov would be sent containing a unique transaction number. The filer then would go to the Board's e-filing website to submit a filing. Once the filer has logged in, there would be a field for the filer to enter the transaction number received from Pay.gov and, if applicable, note that a fee waiver is being requested.13 This transaction number would ensure that the Board can match the payment with the e-filing. If no payment is associated with the filing, the filer would check a box to indicate either that no fee is required or that a fee waiver has been requested. The filer must either enter the transaction number or check the box to complete submission of a filing. After the transaction number has been entered or the box has been checked, the filer would complete the form and attach the document for e-filing. Once the filing is submitted, a confirmation email would be sent to the filer, as is currently done.

    13 The Board also proposes to clarify its regulations regarding fee waivers at 49 CFR 1002.2(b), with the following language: If a filer requests a fee waiver but does not submit the appropriate fee, the filing is held for processing until a determination has been made on the fee waiver request. If the filer requests a fee waiver and submits the appropriate fee, the filing is accepted and the Board refunds the fee or a portion thereof if the fee waiver is ultimately granted.

    E-filing would not be mandatory, but parties making paper filings would be encouraged to also use the Board's electronic payment processor. Paper filers using the electronic payment processing option should note the transaction number they receive from Pay.gov and provide it to the Board with their paper filing or when communicating with Board staff regarding payment of fees.

    Although many practitioners already make use of the Board's e-filing system, these proposed changes are intended to promote increased use of e-filing and result in cost savings to both practitioners and the Board.

    b. Paper Filing

    Because the paper filing option would still be available, the Board also proposes to modify its requirements for paper filers to reduce the burden on those filers. The Board's general provision on copies, found at 49 CFR 1104.3(a), requires 10 copies of paper filings, unless otherwise specifically directed by another Board regulation. Various other provisions of the regulations require a different number of copies.14 The Board proposes to harmonize its rules by eliminating the requirements to file extra copies of paper filings. Instead, paper filers generally would be required to file only the original paper filing. However, the Board would reserve the right to direct filers (including those who e-file) to provide paper copies of filings when necessary. Because of the voluminous nature of filings in merger proceedings, the Board would keep the current requirement regarding the number of paper copies in those regulations (49 CFR 1180.4).

    14See 49 CFR 1012.6(a); 1110.2; 1110.6; 1111.3; 1111.4(c); 1113.7(e); 1113.13; 1130.1; 1130.2(f); 1132.1(d); 1150.10; 1150.16; 1152.21; 1152.22(i); 1152.24(a); 1152.25; 1155.23(c)(1)-(3); 1182.7(e)(2); 1182.8(b); 1244.9(d)(3)(ii), (e)(2), (g)(3); 1312.4; 1313.4; and 1313.10(a)(7), (a)(8)(v).

    The Board also proposes to modify its regulations at 49 CFR 1104.3(b) which governs electronic submissions accompanying paper filings. First, the Board proposes to modify the regulations to eliminate the requirement that electronic versions of pleadings that are 20 or more pages be submitted on compact discs or 3.5-inch floppy diskettes. See 49 CFR 1104.3(b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4). Instead, the proposed regulations would require such filings to be accompanied by electronic versions, and would direct filers to the Board's website for information on how to provide those electronic versions.15 Such a change would allow the Board to more easily keep filing requirements consistent with evolving technology and software. For the same reason, the Board proposes to revise the outdated requirements at 49 CFR 1104.3(b)(2) regarding the submission of evidence or workpapers consisting of mathematical computations by directing filers to the Board's website or the procedural orders in the case for instructions on the proper formatting for such evidence.

    15 At this time, electronic versions would be accepted by email, compact disc, or USB flash drive.

    Electronic Service (E-Service) of Board Decisions

    With the same objective of updating and streamlining Board procedures, the Board also proposes new procedures regarding service of decisions.16 Currently, the Board mails paper copies of its decisions to parties on the service list for each case, incurring costs for mailing and associated resources, and also delaying what could otherwise be more immediate notification to service list participants. Under the proposal, Board decisions would be served by email to those who consent to e-service, thereby streamlining the current process. It is anticipated that the Board would serve decisions by email immediately following posting of decisions on the Board's website, allowing participants to receive more expeditious notification of decisions than with paper service. As discussed below, paper service of Board decisions would still be used for those parties who do not consent to e-service.

    16 The new procedures would not affect the Board's rules regarding parties' service of their filings on other parties.

    Under this proposal, parties that provide an email address to the Board when making a filing would be deemed to have consented to e-service of decisions in one of two ways. First, a party making an e-filing in a proceeding would also be consenting to e-service in that proceeding. The email address(es) provided in the required field in the e-filing form would be included on the service list on behalf of that party for the proceeding. This field in the e-filing form would allow an e-filer to enter multiple email addresses on behalf of that party as e-service recipients. Second, a party who makes a paper filing and includes an email address(es) on such filings would also be deemed to consent to e-service in the proceeding in which the filing was made unless the party opts out. The Board would send such paper filers a letter informing them that the email address(es) on the filing would be used on the service list unless the filer opts out, and verifying that the email address(es) provided is correct.

    The email addresses used by the Board for e-service would be listed on the public service list for each proceeding. Filers should be aware, however, that, at this time, consent for e-service would be proceeding-specific and not filer-specific. Thus, the inclusion of an email address on one service list would not mean that the email address will automatically appear on a service list for a different proceeding in which they are participating.

    The Board would continue to send paper copies of Board decisions as a backup to e-service during the early stages of e-service implementation. The Board expects that this transitional dual service period would last for up to three months after the effective date of any final rule.

    The Board would treat proceedings that are open at the time the rule becomes effective as follows. Email addresses that were previously provided by service list participants when filing (including when e-filing) would not automatically be used for e-service. However, consistent with the procedures explained above, after the effective date of this rule, a party's email address would be added to the e-service list if the party: (1) Utilizes e-filing, or (2) does not opt out of e-service after making a paper filing that includes an email address.

    Fees for Copying, Printing, and Related Services

    The Board is proposing to update and clarify its fees for copying, printing, and related services found at 49 CFR 1002.1. These changes would reduce costs to the public, simplify the fees and associated accounting of such fees, and update obsolete or incorrect references.

    The proposed regulations would reduce the charge for copying and printing tariffs, reports, and other public documents at 49 CFR 1002.1(d) from $1.50 per letter or legal size exposure with a $7.50 minimum to $0.25 per letter or legal size exposure. There would be no charge for the first 100 pages of copying or printing, which would be consistent with current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations at section 1002.1(g) that exclude charges for the first 100 pages for certain categories of users.17 The same reduced charge of $0.25 per page would also apply to copying and printing documents not considered public under FOIA at current 49 CFR 1002.1(g)(7).

    17 The proposed exclusion for the first 100 pages under section 1002.1(d) would apply to all users.

    In addition, the Board is proposing to eliminate current 49 CFR 1002.1(f) and (g)(8), governing search and copying services requiring computer processing, which are obsolete and outdated.

    Administrative Procedure Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because these proposed revisions relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, they are not subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring notice and opportunity for public comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply. Nevertheless, the Board has determined that it would be useful to publish these proposed rule changes for notice and comment before adoption.

    It is ordered:

    1. Comments are due by September 24, 2018.

    2. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal Register.

    3. This decision is effective on its date of service.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 1002

    Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Freedom of information.

    49 CFR Part 1012

    Sunshine Act.

    49 CFR Part 1104

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1110

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations.

    49 CFR Part 1113

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1130

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1132

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1150

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1152

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.

    49 CFR Part 1155

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Waste treatment and disposal.

    49 CFR Part 1182

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 1244

    Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1312

    Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Pipelines, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1313

    Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Forests and forest products, Railroads.

    Decided: August 20, 2018.

    By the Board, Board Member Begeman and Miller.

    Marline Simeon, Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend parts 1002, 1012, 1104, 1110, 1111, 1113, 1130, 1132, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1182, 1244, 1312, and 1313 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 1002—FEES 1. The authority citation for part 1002 is revised to read as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A), (a)(6)(B), and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; and 49 U.S.C. 1321. Section 1002.1(f)(11) is also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 31 U.S.C. 3717. 2. Amend § 1002.1 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (d); b. Amend paragraph (e) by removing the words “Room 1200,”; c. Remove paragraph (f), redesignate paragraphs (g) through (i) as paragraphs (f) through (h); d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7); e. Remove newly redesignated paragraph (f)(8), redesignate paragraphs (f)(9) through (f)(14) as (f)(8) through (f)(13); and f. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (g);

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1002.1 Fees for records search, review, copying, certification, and related services.

    (d) Copies or computer printouts of tariffs, reports, and other public documents, at the rate of $.25 per letter or legal size exposure, only after the first 100 pages, with a minimum charge of $7.50. Copies of electronic records, audiovisual materials, or other forms of data are available at the actual cost of duplication or transcription.

    (f) * * *

    (7) The fee for copies or computer printouts shall be $.25 per letter or legal size exposure, with a minimum charge of $7.50. Copies of electronic records, audiovisual materials, or other forms of data are available at the actual cost of duplication or transcription.

    (g) Fees for services described in paragraph (a) through (f) of this section may be paid by check, money order, or through the Board's electronic payment system in accordance with 49 CFR 1002.2(a)(2).

    3. Amend § 1002.2 as follows: a. Amend paragraph (a)(1) by removing the last sentence; b. Remove paragraph (a)(2); c. Redesignate paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2); d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2); and e. Revise paragraph (b);

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1002.2 Filing fees.

    (a)(2) Filing fees for all e-filings must be paid on the Board's electronic payment system found on the Board's website. Filing fees for other filings may be paid by the electronic payment system, but will also be accepted payable to the Surface Transportation Board, by check payable in United States currency drawn upon funds deposited in a United States or foreign bank or other financial institution, money order payable in United States currency.

    (b) Any filing that is not accompanied by the appropriate filing fee or a request for waiver of the fee is deficient. If a filer requests a fee waiver but does not submit the appropriate fee, the filing is held for processing until a determination has been made on the fee waiver request. If the filer requests a fee waiver and submits the appropriate fee, the filing is accepted and the Board refunds the fee or a portion thereof if the fee waiver is ultimately granted.

    PART 1012—MEETINGS OF THE BOARD 4. The authority citation for part 1012 continues to read as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552b(g), 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321.
    § 1012.2 [Amended]
    5. In § 1012.2(a), remove the words “located at 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC”.
    § 1012.3 [Amended]
    6. In § 1012.3(b)(5), remove the sentence “Unless otherwise specified, that official will be the Board's Public Information Officer, whose telephone number is (202) 275-7252.”. 7. In § 1012.6, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1012.6 Petitions seeking to open or close a meeting.

    (a) The Board will entertain petitions requesting either the opening of a meeting proposed to be closed to the public or the closing of a meeting proposed to be open to the public. In the case of a meeting of the Board, or a Division or committee of the Board, a petition shall be filed.

    PART 1104—FILING WITH THE BOARD-COPIES-VERIFICATION-SERVICE-PLEADINGS, GENERALLY 8. The authority citation for part 1104 continues to read as follows: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 18 U.S.C. 1621; and 49 U.S.C. 1321. 9. In § 1104.1, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 1104.1 Address, identification, and electronic filing option.

    (e) Unless otherwise directed by the Board, persons filing pleadings and documents with the Board have the option of electronically filing (e-filing) pleadings and documents instead of filing paper copies. Details regarding file size limitations, permissible formats, procedures to be followed, acceptable signature formats, and other pertinent information are available on the Board's website, www.stb.gov. If the e-filing option is chosen, then the applicable requirements will be those specified on the Board's website, and any requirements of 49 CFR part 1104 that specifically apply to filing of paper copies will not apply to the e-filed pleadings and documents (these requirements include, but are not limited to, stapling or binding specifications, signature “in ink,” etc.). Persons are not required to e-file and may continue to use the Board's processes for filing paper copies.

    10. Revise § 1104.3 to read as follows:
    § 1104.3 Paper filings, electronic submissions, and copies.

    (a) The executed original of a paper pleading or document permitted or required to be filed under this subchapter, including correspondence, must be furnished for the use of the Board. Textual submissions of 20 or more pages must be accompanied by an electronic version. Details regarding electronic submissions, including evidence, workpapers, and other pertinent information are available on the Board's website, www.stb.gov.

    (b) The Board may, at its discretion, request paper copies of a pleading, document, or paper filed or e-filed with the Board. Any such copies must be clear and legible. Appropriate notes or other indications shall be used so that matters shown in color on the original, but in black and white on the copies, will be accurately identified on all copies.

    PART 1110—PROCEDURES GOVERNING INFORMAL RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS 11. The authority citation for part 1110 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321. 12. Amend § 1110.2 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 1110.2 Opening of proceeding.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Be submitted to the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Washington DC;

    § 1110.6 [Amended]
    13. Amend § 1110.6(a) by removing the phrase “and one copy”. PART 1111—COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES 14. The authority citation for part 1111 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 10704, 11701, and 1321. 15. In § 1111.4, revise the sixth sentence and remove the seventh sentence to read as follows:
    § 1111.4 [Amended]

    * * * The complaint should be filed with the Board together with an acknowledgment of service by the persons served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the names of the persons served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified by the person who made service.

    16. Amend § 1111.5 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1111.5 Answers and cross complaints.

    (c) Time for filing; copies; service. An answer must be filed with the Board within 20 days after the service of the complaint or within such additional time as the Board may provide. The defendant must serve copies of the answer upon the complainant and any other defendants.

    PART 1113—ORAL HEARING 17. The authority citation for part 1113 continues to read as follows: 5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321. 18. Amend § 1113.7 by revising the first two sentences of paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 1113.7 [Amended]

    (e) Copies; service; replies. When a petition for leave to intervene is tendered at the hearing, sufficient copies of the petition must be provided for distribution to the parties represented at the hearing. When a petition for leave to intervene is not tendered at the hearing, the petition should be submitted to the Board together with a certificate that service has been made by petitioner. * * *

    § 1113.13 [Amended]
    19. Amend § 1113.13 as follows: a. Revise the section heading; and b. Remove the last sentence of the paragraph;

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1113.13 Filing evidence subsequent to hearing.
    PART 1130—INFORMAL COMPLAINTS 20. The authority citation for part 1130 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), 14709. 21. Amend § 1130.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1130.1 When no damages sought.

    (a) Form and content. Informal complaint may be by letter or other writing filed with the Board and will be serially numbered as filed. The complaint must contain the essential elements of a formal complaint as specified at 49 CFR 1111.1(a) and may embrace supporting papers.

    22. Amend § 1130.2 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 1130.2 When damages sought.

    (f) * * * Any petition for reconsideration should be filed with the Board.

    PART 1132—PROTESTS REQUESTING SUSPENSION AND INVESTIGATION OF COLLECTIVE RATEMAKING ACTIONS 23. The authority citation for part 1132 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), and 13703. 24. Amend § 1132.1 as follows: a. Remove paragraph (c); b. Redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) as (c) and (d); c. Revise newly designated paragraph (c); d. Remove the last sentence of newly designated paragraph (d);

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1132.1 Protest against collective rate-making actions.

    (c) Copies; service. Every protest or reply filed under this section should be directed to the attention of the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board. One copy of each protest or reply filed under this section simultaneously must be served upon the publishing carrier or collective ratemaking organization, and upon other persons known by protestant to be interested.

    PART 1150—CERTIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE RAILROAD LINES 25. The authority citation for part 1150 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 10502, 10901, and 10902.
    § 1150.10 [Amended]
    26. In § 1150.10: a. In paragraph (b), remove the words “The original and 10 copies of the application” and add in their place “An application”, and remove the words “application shall include” and add in their place “application may include”; and b. In paragraph (g), remove “(with 10 copies)”.
    § 1150.16 [Amended]
    27. In § 1150.16, remove the reference to “(plus three copies)”. PART 1152—ABANDONMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF RAIL LINES AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10903 28. The authority citation for part 1152 continues to read as follows: 11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.
    § 1152.21 [Amended]
    29. In § 1152.21, in the paragraph beginning with, “Written comments and protests, including all requests. . .”, remove the words “The original and 10 copies of all comments or protests” and add in their place “Every comment or protest”.
    § 1152.22 [Amended]
    30. In § 1152.22(i), in the paragraph beginning with, “Written comments and protests, including all requests. . .”, remove the words “The original and 10 copies of all comments or protests” and add in their place “Every comment or protest”. 31. Amend § 1152.24 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1152.24 Filing and service of application.

    (a) The application shall be filed with the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Washington, DC 20423-0001. The application shall bear the date and signature and shall be complete in itself. The applicable filing fee must be paid by check, money order, or through the Board's electronic payment system (see 49 CFR part 1002). If the applicant carrier is in bankruptcy, the application shall also be filed on the bankruptcy court.

    32. Amend § 1152.25 as follows: a. Remove paragraph (c)(2); b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) to (c)(4) as paragraphs (c)(2) to (c)(3). c. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (c)(3); d. Revise paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), (4), (6), and (7)(i);

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1152.25 Participation in abandonment or discontinuance proceedings.

    (c) * * *

    (3) Replies or rebuttal to written comments and protests shall be filed and served by applicants no later than 60 days after the filing of the application.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) The applicability and administration of the Trails Act [16 U.S.C. 1247(d)] in abandonment proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 10903 (and abandonment exemption proceedings), issued pursuant to delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(iv) and (v), will be acted on by the entire Board as set forth at 49 CFR 1011.2(a)(7). Any appeals, and replies to appeals, under this section must be filed with the Board.

    (4) Petitions to reopen administratively final actions. A person may file with the Board a petition to reopen any administratively final action of the Board. A petition to reopen shall state in detail the respects in which the proceeding involves material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances.

    (6) Petitions to vacate. In the event of procedural defects (such as the loss of a properly filed protest, the failure of the applicant to afford the public the requisite notice of its proposed abandonment, etc.), the Board will entertain petitions to vacate the abandonment or discontinuance authorization. Any petitions to vacate must be filed with the Board.

    (7) * * *

    (i) The filing of a petition to reopen shall not stay the effect of a prior action. Any petition to stay must be filed with the Board.

    PART 1155—SOLID WASTE RAIL TRANSFER FACILITIES 33. The authority citation for part 1155 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 10908, 10909, 10910.
    § 1155.23 [Amended]
    34. In § 1155.23: a. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the sentence “An original and 10 copies of each comment shall be filed with the Board.”; b. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the sentence “An original and 10 copies of such comments shall be filed with the Board.”; and c. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the sentence “An original and 10 copies of such replies shall be filed with the Board.” PART 1182—PURCHASE, MERGER, AND CONTROL OF MOTOR PASSENGER CARRIERS 35. The authority citation for part 1182 continues to read as follows: 5 U.S.C. 559; 21 U.S.C. 862; and 49 U.S.C. 13501, 13541(a), 13902(c), and 14303.
    § 1182.7 [Amended]
    36. In § 1182.7(e)(2), remove the words “The original and 10 copies of the” and add in their place “The”.
    § 1182.8 [Amended]
    37. Amend § 1182.8(b) by removing paragraph (b) and redesignating paragraphs (c) to (f) as paragraphs (b) to (e). PART 1244—WAYBILL ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY—RAILROADS 38. The authority citation for part 1244 continues to read as follows:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.

    § 1244.9 [Amended]
    39. In § 1244.9: a. In paragraph (d)(3): i. In paragraph (i), insert the words “with the Director, Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC” at the end of the sentence; ii. Remove paragraph (ii); and iii. Redesignate subparagraph (iii) as subparagraph (ii). b. In paragraph (e)(2), remove the words “An original and 2 copies of the” and add in their place “The”. c. In paragraph (g)(3), remove the words “An original and three (3) copies of the” and add in their place “The”. PART 1312—REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLICATION, POSTING AND FILING OF TARIFFS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY OR WITH A WATER CARRIER IN NONCONTIGUOUS DOMESTIC TRADE 40. The authority citation for part 1312 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 13702(a), 13702(b) and 13702(d).
    § 1312.4 [Amended]
    41. In § 1312.4: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove “1925 K Street, NW,”; b. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), remove the words “enclosed, the account number to be billed, or the credit card to be charged;” and add in their place “enclosed (pursuant to 49 CFR 1002.2(a)); and”; c. In paragraph (a)(2)(iv), remove the words “numbers; and” and add in their place “numbers.”; and d. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(v). PART 1313—RAILROAD CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 42. The authority citation for part 1313 continues to read as follows: 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 10709. 43. In § 1313.4, revise paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (iv), and remove paragraph (a)(3)(v), to read as follows:
    § 1313.4 Filing procedures and formats for contract summaries.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) The filing fee enclosed (pursuant to 49 CFR 1002.2(a)); and

    (iv) The transmittal number if the filer utilizes transmittal numbers.

    44. In § 1313.10, revise paragraph (a)(7) and remove paragraph (a)(8)(v) to read as follows:
    § 1313.10 Procedures for complaints and discovery.

    (a) * * *

    (7) Filings. If a complaint, petition, or reply is filed in paper, it must be filed with the Board in a package marked “Confidential Rail Contract Material”. If a complaint, petition, or reply is electronically filed, it must be designated as confidential in the Board's e-filing system.

    [FR Doc. 2018-18342 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    83 165 Friday, August 24, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect Information AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget regulations, this notice announces the request of the Agricultural Research Service, permission to collect information from North Dakota landowners in nine counties, to gain their perspective on their grasslands in the Northern Great Plains. A mail survey composed of 42 questions will be mailed to landowners. Topics for which information will be collected from respondents include farm/ranch characteristics, land management style, land use practices, opinions about new grass species, opinions about Kentucky bluegrass and what producers are doing about it, Kentucky bluegrass management, and personal characteristics.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by October 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to David Toledo, Research Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA, ARS, 1701 10th Avenue SW, P.O. Box 459, Mandan North, Dakota 58554. Submit electronic comments to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Toledo, Research Rangeland Management Specialist. Phone: 701-667-3063 or Fax: 701-667-3054.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Your Perspective on Your Grasslands in the Northern Great Plains.

    OMB Number: 0518-XXXX.

    Expiration Date:

    Type of Request: To administer survey for data collection.

    Abstract: A survey questionnaire will be mailed via U.S. Postal Service. The Survey consists of 42 questions about farm/ranch characteristics, land management style, land use practices, opinions about new grass species, opinions about Kentucky bluegrass and what producers are doing about it, Kentucky bluegrass management, and personal characteristics.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

    Respondents: A subset of landowners in each of the following North Dakota counties: Barnes County, Billings County, Burleigh County, Cass County, Golden Valley County, Kidder County, Morton County, Stark County, Stutsman County. Using 2012 Agricultural Census data it was determined that if landowners with farms greater than 1,000 acres are included as part of the sample, the population of potential respondents will be 2,191.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 718 with a margin of error 3 percent.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 179.5 hours.

    Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the 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 those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address listed in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 15, 2018. Simon Y. Liu, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18317 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0056] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the use of contract pilots and aircraft in Plant Protection and Quarantine domestic, emergency, and biological control programs.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0056.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0056, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0056 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on contract pilot and aircraft acceptance, contact Mr. Richard Johnson, National Policy Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2109. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0298.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with States, to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests and noxious weeds that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

    As part of this mission, APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program responds to introductions of plant pests with eradication, suppression, or containment through various programs in cooperation with State departments of agriculture and other government agencies. These programs may include the aerial application of treatments to control plant pests.

    APHIS contracts for these services and, prior to any aerial applications, requests certain information from the contractors and/or contract pilots to ensure that the work will be done according to specifications. Among other things, APHIS asks to see the aircraft registration, the aircraft's airworthiness certificate, the pilot's license, the pilot's medical certification, the pilot's proof of flight review, the pilot's pesticide applicator's license, and the aircraft logbook. Information from these documents and aircraft inspection results are consolidated by APHIS for signature by the APHIS official and the contractor or contract pilot, indicating acceptance of the pilot and aircraft for the job.

    APHIS is revising the title of this information collection from PPQ Form 816, Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance to Contract Pilot and Aircraft Acceptance to better represent this information collection.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.

    Respondents: Contractors and/or contract pilots of aircraft.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 20.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 20.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 5 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of August 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18417 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0055] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Small Lots of Seeds Without Phytosanitary Certificates ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of small lots of seeds into the United States without phytosanitary certificates.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0055.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0055, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0055 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations related to the importation of small lots of seeds into the United States without phytosanitary certificates, contact Mr. Joseph Corpuz, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2068. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Small Lots of Seeds Without Phytosanitary Certificates.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0285.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Plants for Planting” (7 CFR 319.37-1 through 319.37-23) prohibit or restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seed for propagation.

    These regulations allow small lots of seed to be imported into the United States under an import permit with specific conditions as an alternative to a phytosanitary certificate requirement. These conditions include packet and shipment labeling and marking and port of arrival notification. Noncompliant imported lots may be confined at the port of entry while the importer responds to and acts on a Government-issued emergency action notification.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.02 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers, commercial horticulturalists and plant scientists, and private individuals.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,376.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 423.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 1,005,494.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 18,732 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of August 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18414 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0054] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; National Poultry Improvement Plan ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the National Poultry Improvement Plan.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0054.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0054, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0054 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the National Poultry Improvement Plan, contact Dr. Denise Heard, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Poultry Improvement Plan.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0007.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized, among other things, to administer the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), the primary purpose of which is to protect the health of the U.S. poultry population. NPIP is a Federal-State-industry cooperative program for the improvement of poultry flocks and products through disease control techniques. Participation in all NPIP programs is voluntary, but flocks, hatcheries, and dealers of breeding poultry must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participation in NPIP programs. The NPIP regulations are contained in 9 CFR part 56 and parts 145 through 147.

    To administer the NPIP, APHIS requires a number of activities that include memoranda of understanding; summaries of flock, slaughter plant, and other poultry business participation in NPIP; flock inspection and check testing reports; hatchery inspections; requests for salmonella serotyping; requests for compartment and component registration; requests for component removal; component audits; and auditor applications. They also include flock selecting and testing reports; reports and summaries of sales of hatching eggs, chicks, and poults; reports and investigations of salmonella isolations in poultry; sentinel bird marking for identification prior to flock vaccination; appraisal and indemnity claims; compliance statements; and recordkeeping.

    The information collection and recordkeeping activities described above represent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0579-0007, National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), and OMB control number 0579-0445, National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions. After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0007), APHIS will retire OMB control number 0579-0445.

    We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response.

    Respondents: State agriculture officials; flock owners; breeders; hatchery operators; table-egg, meat-type chicken, and meat-type turkey producers; feedlot and slaughter plant personnel; approved laboratory personnel; prospective and certified auditors; visitors; and associated entities.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 6,851.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 34.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 234,963.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 117,254 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of August 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18416 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Revision of the Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of the opportunity to object to the Revised Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest prior to approval.

    SUMMARY:

    El Yunque National Forest, located in Puerto Rico, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), a Revised Land Management Plan and a Draft Record of Decision (ROD). This notice is to inform the public that a 60-day period is being initiated where individuals or entities with specific concerns on El Yunque's Revised Land Management Plan and its associated FEIS may file an objection for a Forest Service review prior to the approval of the Revised Land Management Plan.

    DATES:

    El Yunque's Revised Land Management Plan, FEIS, Draft ROD, and other supporting information, will be available for review at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning starting August 17, 2018.

    A legal notice of the initiation of the 60-day objection period is also being published in El Yunque National Forest's newspaper of record, which is El Nuevo Dia. The date of the publication of the legal notice in El Nuevo Dia will determine the actual date of initiation of the 60-day objection period. A copy of the legal notice that is published in El Nuevo Dia will be posted on the website described above.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Revised Land Mangement Plan for El Yunque National Forest, the FEIS, and the Draft ROD can be obtained online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning; or by visiting the Forest Supervisor's Office at the following location:

    • Supervisor's Office, Rd. PR 191 Int. 988, Km. 4.4, Bo. Barcelona, Palmer, PR 00721 (Telephone: 787-888-1880); or by mailing a request to:

    • Forest Supervisor's Office, HC 01 Box 13490, Rio Grande, PR 00745. Objections must be submitted to the Reviewing Officer:

    • Regional Forester, USDA—Forest Service, Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer, 1720 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309 (Telephone: 404-347-4177; Fax: 404-347-4821).

    Objections may be submitted electronically at [email protected]

    Note that the office hours for submitting a hand-delivered objection are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a commonly used format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf) or Microsoft Word® (.doc or .docx).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pedro Rios, Forest Planning Staff Officer, El Yunque National Forest at 787-888-1880. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Eastern time), Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Forest Service, Southern Region, El Yunque National Forest, has prepared a Revised Land Mangement Plan, FEIS, and a Draft ROD. This notice is to inform the public that a 60-day period is being initiated where individuals or entities with specific concerns on El Yunque's Revised Land Management Plan and its associated FEIS and Draft ROD, may file an objection for a Forest Service review prior to the approval of the Revised Land Management Plan.

    The publication date of the legal notice in El Yunque National Forest's newspaper of record, El Nuevo Dia, will initiate the 60-day objection period and is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection (36 CFR 219.16 and 219.52). An electronic scan of the notice with the publication date will be posted on El Yunque National Forest's website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/landmanagement/planning.

    The objection process under 36 CFR 219 subpart B, provides an opportunity for members of the public who have participated in the planning process for El Yunque National Forest to have any unresolved concerns reviewed by the Forest Service prior to a final decision by the Responsible Official. Only those who provided substantive formal comments during opportunities for public comment during the planning process are eligible to file an objection. Regulations at 36 CFR 219.62 define substantive formal comments as:

    Written comments submitted to, or oral comments recorded by, the responsible official or his designee during an opportunity for public participation provided during the planning process, and attributed to the individual or entity providing them. Comments are considered substantive when they are within the scope of the proposal, are specific to the proposal, have a direct relationship to the proposal, and include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.

    How To File an Objection

    The Forest Service will accept mailed, emailed, faxed, and hand-delivered objections concerning the Revised Land Management Plan and associated FEIS for 60 calendar days following the date of the publication of the legal notice of this objection period in the newspaper of record, El Nuevo Dia. It is the responsibility of the objector to ensure that the Reviewing Officer receives the objection in a timely manner. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the objection filing period.

    Objections must be submitted to the Reviewing Officer, who will be the Regional Forester for the Southern Region, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Objections or objection content specific to the identification of species of conservation concern will be forwarded to Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, delegated Reviewing Officer for the Chief of the Forest Service.

    An objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):

    (1) The objector's name and address along with a telephone number or email address, if available. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an objection, the Forest Service will attempt to verify the identity of the objector to confirm objection eligibility;

    (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);

    (3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection. The Forest Service will communicate to all parties to an objection through the lead objector. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must also be provided if requested;

    (4) The name of the plan revision being objected to, and the name and title of the Responsible Official;

    (5) A statement of the issues and/or parts of the plan revision to which the objection applies;

    (6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan decision may be improved. If the objector believes that the plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy, an explanation should be included;

    (7) A statement that demonstrates the link between the objector's prior substantive formal comments and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment; and

    (8) All documents referenced in the objection (a bibliography is not sufficient), except that the following need not be provided:

    a. All or any part of a Federal law or regulation,

    b. Forest Service Directive System documents and land management plans or other published Forest Service documents,

    c. Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the planning documentation related to the proposal subject to objection, and

    d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the plan revision comment period.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible official for the revision of the Land Management Plan for El Yunque National Forest is Sharon Wallace, Forest Supervisor, El Yunque National Forest, HC 01 Box 13490, Rio Grande, PR 00745.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18353 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection to comply with a mandate in the 2014 Farm Bill. (. . . the Secretary of Agriculture should recognize the threat feral swine pose to the domestic swine population and the entire agriculture industry . . .).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by October 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0256, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number above in the subject line of the message.

    Efax: (855) 838-6382.

    Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Feral Swine Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0256.

    Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Revise and Extend an Information Collection for three Years.

    Abstract: On Feb 3, 1999, Executive Order 13112 was signed, establishing the National Invasive Species Council. This Executive Order requires that a Council of Departments dealing with invasive species be created. This Order was enhanced by Executive Order 13751 which was signed on Dec. 5, 2016. Currently there are 16 Departments and Agencies on the Council. https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/about-nisc.

    On April 2, 2014 the USDA kicked off a national effort to reduce the devastating damage caused by feral swine. In 2015, the benchmark survey was conducted in 11 States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) to measure the amount of damage feral hogs caused to specific crops in these states. The target population within these states consisted of farm operations who have historically produced one or more of the following crops: corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, peanuts, or sorghum (Texas only). The results of this benchmark survey shows that in the 11 surveyed States, there was damage to an estimated $190 million in crops for the six target crops. The published findings from this benchmark survey can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219416301557.

    In 2017, this survey was conducted in the following 13 States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, to measure the damage to livestock that is associated with the presence of feral swine. These States were chosen because they had high feral swine densities and a significant presence of cattle, hogs, sheep and/or goats. The findings from this survey are scheduled to be submitted for publication around the end of September 2018.

    In 2019, the survey will be conducted in 12 States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. The operators in 11 of the States will be selected from operations that recently produced hay/haylage, tree nuts, melons, sugar cane, sweet potatoes, or cotton. In California, operators will be selected from operations that produced hay/haylage, tree nuts, grapes, sod, carrots, lettuce, or strawberries.

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services' (WS) National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is the only Federal research organization devoted exclusively to resolving conflicts between people and wildlife through the development of effective, selective, and socially responsible methods, tools, and techniques. As increased urbanization leads to a loss of traditional wildlife habitat, the potential for conflicts between people and wildlife increases. Such conflicts can take many forms, including property and natural resource damage, human health and safety concerns, and disease transmission among wildlife, livestock, and humans.

    Free-ranging populations of feral swine exist in at least 35 states, and the nationwide population is estimated at approximately 5 million animals. Feral swine damage pastures, agricultural crops, lawns, landscaping, and natural areas due to feeding, rooting, wallowing, grazing, and trampling activities. Feral swine are reservoirs of many diseases and act as a host to parasites that can negatively impact agricultural animals, especially swine.

    Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). The eradication of feral swine is authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act (Title 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.) and the 2014 Farmbill. The $20 million program aims to help states deal with a rapidly expanding population of invasive feral swine.

    Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

    NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

    Estimate of Burden: Reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response. This was determined by our Survey Methodologists, who compared the length and difficulty of the questions with similar surveys. They also took into account the projected number of farmers who will skip some sections of the questionnaire due to the presence or absence of damage due to feral swine. Burden is based on an estimated minimum response rate of 80%. On similar types of surveys and through the use of a mail questionnaire and telephone follow-up to non-respondents NASS has been able to contact and collect some data from approximately 80% of the target sample. After removing the out of business operations and those with no items of interest we hope to have at least a 65 to 70% usable response rate.

    NASS will be utilizing several pieces of publicity and informational materials to encourage respondents to participate in this important survey. NASS will conduct the survey initially by mail with phone follow-up for non-response.

    Respondents: Farm Operators.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 15,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,600 hours.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

    All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, August 8, 2018. Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18316 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service [Docket No. NRCS-2018-0005] Notice of Proposed Changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices for the Natural Resources Conservation Service AGENCY:

    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed changes to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices (NHCP) for public review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the intention of NRCS to issue a series of revised conservation practice standards in the NHCP. These standards include Combustion System Improvement (Code 372), Dust Control on Unpaved Roads and Surfaces (Code 373), Integrated Pest Management (Code 595), Nutrient Management (Code 590), Pesticide Mitigation (Code 594), Subsurface Drain (Code 606), Waste Facility Closure (Code 360), and Wildlife Habitat Planting (Code 420).

    NRCS State Conservationists who choose to adopt these practices in their States will incorporate them into Section IV of their respective electronic Field Office Technical Guide. These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land (HEL) or on land determined to be a wetland. Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 requires NRCS to make available for public review and comment all proposed revisions to conservation practice standards used to carry out HEL and wetland provisions of the law.

    DATES:

    These revisions shall be applicable as of August 24, 2018.

    Comment Date: Submit comments on or before September 24, 2018. Final versions of these new or revised conservation practice standards will be adopted after the close of the 30-day period and after consideration of all comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be submitted, identified by Docket Number NRCS-2018-0005, using any of the following methods:

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

    Mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attention: Regulatory and Agency Policy Team, Strategic Planning and Accountability, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Building 1-1112D, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.

    NRCS will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. In general, personal information provided with comments will be posted. If your comment includes your address, phone number, email, or other personal identifying information (PII), your comments, including PII, may be available to the public. You may ask in your comment that your PII be withheld from public view, but this cannot be guaranteed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Bill Reck, National Environmental Engineer, Conservation Engineering Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue Southwest, South Building, Room 6136, Washington, DC 20250.

    Electronic copies of the proposed revised standards are available through http://www.regulations.gov by accessing Docket No. NRCS-2018-0005. Alternatively, copies can be downloaded or printed from http://go.usa.gov/TXye. Requests for paper versions or inquiries may be directed to: Mr. Emil Horvath, National Practice Standards Review Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Central National Technology Support Center, 501 West Felix Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The amount of the proposed changes varies considerably for each of the conservation practice standards addressed in this notice. To fully understand the proposed changes, individuals are encouraged to compare these changes with each standard's current version, which can be found at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/?cid=nrcs143_026849. To aid in this comparison, following are highlights of some of the proposed revisions to each standard:

    Combustion System Improvement (Code 372)—Revised language of the general criteria and criteria applicable to the air quality and energy purposes to address some confusion encountered in the implementation of the practice.

    Dust Control on Unpaved Roads and Surfaces (Code 373)—Relatively minor changes have been made to the 2010 version. Two purposes were added to more adequately describe the reasons for using this practice: “improve visibility by reducing emissions of particulate matter;” and “improve plant health and vigor by reducing emissions of particulate matter.”

    Integrated Pest management (Code 595)—The standard definition and purposes have been updated to reflect current agency policy and science. The standard has been edited to clarify criteria, and support farmers and ranchers wanting to address resource concerns and implement an integrated pest management system where land-grant-university guidelines are available.

    Nutrient Management (Code 590)—The revision has no significant definition technical changes. Instead, it has a focus on improving the usability of 590 at the operational level of the agency (i.e. the State and field). The formatting and writing style were updated to meet current agency requirements. Bullet point statements were used to specify single concepts and replace paragraphs containing multiple concepts.

    Pesticide Mitigation (Code 594)—A new standard to support farmers and ranchers wanting to address resource concerns created by the use of pesticides in areas where they do not have land-grant university integrated pest management guidelines for one or more of their crops or cropping systems. Proposed Standard 594 offers resource protection using site-specific techniques designed to mitigate the impacts of chemical pest suppression on natural resources.

    Subsurface Drain (Code 606)—The formatting and writing style were updated to meet current agency requirements. Sections of the standard were relocated and rearranged to improve document flow. The minimum velocity has been raised to 0.8 feet-per-second for areas without sedimentation problems. Provisions have been included for the use of square junction boxes.

    Waste Facility Closure (Code 360)—The formatting and writing style were updated to improve clarity. Criteria was added to dry-waste storages to render the site unsuitable for stacking or treating waste. Language was added to the standard to make it clear that the standard is not used for the rehabilitation or expansion of existing facilities.

    Wildlife Habitat Planting (Code 420)—This is a new conservation practice standard developed to better address the technical complexities of establishing wildlife habitat, including pollinator and monarch butterfly habitat plantings. Wildlife Habitat Planting (420) will be planned and applied when establishing herbaceous vegetation for wildlife. Planting trees for wildlife will be planned and applied using Tree and Shrub Establishment (612).

    Signed this 25th day of June 2018, in Washington, DC. Leonard Jordan, Acting Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18296 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meetings AGENCY:

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Thursday through Friday, September 6-7, 2018 at the times and location listed below.

    DATES:

    The schedule of events is as follows:

    Thursday, September 6, 2018 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Information Meeting on Assembly Areas Friday, September 7, 2018 9:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Budget Committee 9:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Planning and Evaluation Committee 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Technical Programs Committee 11:00 a.m.-Noon National Council on Disability Briefing; Closed to public 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Architectural Barriers Act ADDRESSES:

    Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In lieu of its regularly scheduled Board meeting, the Access Board plans to hold a special event celebrating 50 years of the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA). Guest presentations include Judith E. Heumann from the Ford Foundation and federal agencies that issue accessibility standards under the ABA. Registration for this event is not required and members of the public are invited to join the celebration and a reception that follows. This event will be live streamed with captioning. More information about the ABA Anniversary can be found at: https://www.access-board.gov/news/1935-access-board-to-celebrate-50-years-of-the-architectural-barriers-act.

    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the ABA anniversary event and committee meetings.

    Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information).

    You may view the Friday, September 7, 2018 ABA event through a live webcast from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at: www.access-board.gov/webcast.

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18299 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee; Correction AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Correction: Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission on Civil Rights published a document August 14, 2018, announcing an upcoming Maryland Advisory Committee. The document contained incorrect address to the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara de La Viez, DFO, at [email protected] or 202-376-7533.

    CORRECTION:

    In the Federal Register of August 14, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-17401, on pages 40223-40224 in the first and second columns, delete the “Address” and replace it with Murphy Fine Arts Center, Recital Hall, 2201 Argonne Dr., Baltimore, MD 21251.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18285 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018-2020 Business Research and Development Surveys AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael Flaherty, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6H149, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD 20746, (301) 763-7699 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), plans to conduct the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS) for the 2018-2020 survey years. The BRDS covers all domestic, non-farm, for-profit businesses with at least 10 paid employees. The BRDS provides the only comprehensive data on Research and Development (R&D) costs and detailed expenses by type and industry.

    The Census Bureau has conducted an R&D survey since 1957, collecting primarily financial information on the systematic work companies undertake to discover new knowledge or use existing knowledge to develop new or improved goods and services.

    Beginning in 2018, the BRDS will collect new data about R&D on artificial intelligence and geographic detail of companies' R&D workforce. There is increasing interest among domestic policy-makers and in the international community, as well as among U.S. researchers in academia, government and industry, for more data on artificial intelligence. Domestic and foreign geographic information for R&D workforce will address Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) requests on inputs for enhanced estimation and evaluation of gross domestic product by state, foreign direct investment in the U.S., and U.S. direct investment abroad.

    The 2018-2020 BRDS will continue to collect the following types of information:

    • R&D expense based on accepted accounting standards.

    • Worldwide R&D of domestic companies.

    • Business segment detail.

    • R&D-related capital expenditures.

    • Detailed data about the R&D workforce.

    • R&D strategy and data on the potential impact of R&D on the market.

    • R&D directed to application areas of particular national interest.

    • Data measuring intellectual property protection activities and technology transfer.

    Domestic and foreign researchers in academia, business, and government analyze and cite data from the BRDS. Among the federal government users are the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). BEA includes R&D in the system of national accounts that measures the economic well-being of the country. BRDS data are key inputs into these accounts, which feed into the calculation of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The White House, in 2006, issued the American Competitiveness Initiative to “increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship.” In support of this initiative and in response to legislative mandates, data on R&D are delivered to OSTP, primarily in the biennial National Science Board report Science and Engineering Indicators. Also, the National Science Foundation (NSF) produces a series of publications containing R&D data including the National Patterns of R&D Resources series, the S&E State Profile series, and the annual Business R&D and Innovation series. Special reports and other publications are also prepared.

    II. Method of Collection

    The BRDS will follow a primarily electronic collection strategy. The BRD-1 form will be available on the website to assist respondents with gathering the required data prior to reporting online. Paper forms will also be sent to respondents upon request, however no paper forms will be included in initial mail packets. The online survey automatically skips questions that do not apply [based on previous responses] and checks for common errors. Links to detailed question-by-question instructions will be embedded in the electronic instrument. Excel spreadsheets are available to facilitate the electronic collection of information from various areas of the companies. Respondents have the capability to download the spreadsheets from the Census Bureau's website. A consolidator spreadsheet is also available to assist companies that need to gather information from business units and then compile the information into one company report.

    The due date will be six weeks after mail out.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0912.

    Form Number: BRD-1.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: All domestic, non-farm, for-profit (public or private) businesses with at least 10 paid employees.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 45,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3.3 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 148,600.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 131 and 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Department Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18374 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

    Title: Events and Efforts Supporting National Cybersecurity Career Awareness Week.

    OMB Control Number: #0693-XXXX. New information collection.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Number of Respondents: 500 annual respondents.

    Average Hours per Response: 10 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 83 hours annually.

    Needs and Uses: This collection is necessary to support the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Strategic Plan objective to increase cybersecurity career awareness. The collection of information will allow the NICE Program Office to share with the public a compiled list of events and opportunities to learn about cybersecurity careers. Doing so will provide a resource for potential attendees, extend the reach of programs and efforts, and encourage more individuals and organizations to get involved in National Cybersecurity Career Awareness Week.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18282 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Procedures for Submitting Request for Exclusions From the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Submitting Request for Exclusions from the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0139.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 344,532.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 86,133.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This collection of information supports Presidential Proclamations 9704 Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States and 9705 Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States. On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamations 9704 and 9705 concurring with the findings of the two investigation reports submitted by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansions Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862) and determining that adjusting imports through the imposition of duties on aluminum and steel is necessary so that imports of aluminum and steel will no longer threaten to impair the national security.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected].

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18281 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-52-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 78—Nashville, Tennessee; Application for Subzone; Calsonic Kansei North America; Shelbyville and Lewisburg, Tennessee

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Calsonic Kansei North America, located in Shelbyville and Lewisburg, Tennessee. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 15, 2018.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (34 acres) One Calsonic Way, Shelbyville; Site 2 (66.9 acres) Stanley Boulevard, Shelbyville; Site 3 (32.6 acres) 201 Garrett Parkway, Lewisburg; Site 4 (35 acres) 1701 Childress Road, Lewisburg; and, Site 5 (15.82 acres) 633 Garrett Parkway, Lewisburg. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 3, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 18, 2018.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18334 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 180703606-8606-01] Award Competition for Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Center in the State of Alaska AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce (DoC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).

    SUMMARY:

    NIST invites applications from eligible organizations in connection with NIST's funding of an MEP cooperative agreement for the operation of an MEP Center in the State of Alaska in the amount identified in the Funding Availability section of this notice. NIST anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative agreement for the State of Alaska. The objective of this announcement by the MEP Program is to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small and medium-sized manufacturers within the State of Alaska. The selected organization will become part of the MEP National NetworkTM of extension service providers, currently located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

    DATES:

    Electronic applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Oct. 23, 2018. Paper applications will not be accepted. Applications received after the deadline will not be reviewed or considered. The approximate start date for awards under this notice and the corresponding NOFO is expected to be January 1, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications must be submitted electronically through www.grants.gov. NIST will not accept applications submitted by mail, facsimile, or by email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, and eligibility questions and other programmatic questions should be directed to Mike Simpson at Tel: (301) 975-6147 or Wiza Lequin at Tel: (301) 975-4395; Email: [email protected]; Fax: (301) 963-6556. Grants Rules and Regulation questions should be addressed to: Leon Sampson, Grants Management Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; Tel: (301) 975-3086; Email: [email protected]; Fax: (301) 975-6368. For technical assistance with Grants.gov submissions contact Leon Sampson at Tel: (301) 975-3086; Email: [email protected]; Fax: (301) 975-6368. Questions submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST MEP) may be posted as part of an FAQ document, which will be periodically updated on the MEP website at https://www.nist.gov/mep/manufacturing-extension-partnership-center-alaska.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic access: Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the corresponding NOFO announcement available at www.grants.gov for complete information about this program, including all program requirements and instructions for applying electronically. Paper applications or electronic applications submitted other than through www.grants.gov will not be accepted.

    System for Award Management registration required: When developing your submission timeline, please keep in mind that (1) all applicants are required to have a current registration in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov); (2) the free annual registration process in the electronic System for Award Management (SAM.gov) may take between three and five business days, and may take as long as two weeks; (3) applicants submitting electronic applications are required to have a current registration in Grants.gov; and (4) applicants will receive a series of email messages from Grants.gov over a period of up to two business days before learning whether a Federal agency's electronic system has received its application. Please note that a federal assistance award cannot be issued if the designated recipient's registration in the SAM.gov is not current at the time of the award.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented in 15 CFR part 290.

    Assistance Listing (CFDA Number): Manufacturing Extension Partnership—11.611.

    Webinar Information Session: NIST MEP will hold a webinar information session for organizations that are considering applying to this funding opportunity. This webinar will provide general information regarding MEP and offer general guidance on preparing proposals. NIST MEP staff will be available on the webinar to answer general questions. Also, NIST MEP staff will not critique or provide feedback on any specific project ideas during the webinar or at any time before submission of a proposal to MEP. However, NIST MEP staff will provide information about the MEP eligibility and cost sharing requirements, evaluation criteria and selection factors, selection process, and the general characteristics of a competitive MEP proposal during this webinar. The webinar will be held approximately fifteen (15) to thirty (30) business days after posting of the corresponding NOFO. The exact date and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP website at https://www.nist.gov/mep/manufacturing-extension-partnership-center-alaska. The webinar will be recorded, and a link to the recording will be posted on the MEP website. In addition, the webinar presentation will be available on the MEP website. Organizations wishing to participate in the webinar must sign up by emailing [email protected] Participation in the webinar is not required in order for an organization to submit an application pursuant to this notice and the corresponding NOFO.

    Program Description: NIST invites applications from eligible applicants for a NIST cooperative agreement funding for one (1) MEP center to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small and medium-sized manufacturers in the State of Alaska. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is based at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The National Program Office (aka NIST MEP), which provides the Federal Government funding for the MEP National Network, is located in Gaithersburg, MD.

    The MEP National Network is a unique public-private partnership that delivers comprehensive, proven solutions to U.S. manufacturers, fueling growth and advancing U.S. manufacturing.

    Focused on helping small and medium-sized manufacturers generate business results and thrive in today's technology-driven economy, the MEP National Network comprises the NIST MEP, the 51 MEP Centers located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, and over 1,300 trusted advisors and experts at more than 400 MEP service locations, providing any U.S. manufacturer with access to resources they need to succeed.

    The MEP National Network's strength is in its partnerships. Through its collaborations at the federal, state and local level, MEP Centers work with manufacturers to develop new products and customers, expand and diversify markets, adopt new technology, and enhance value within supply chains. The MEP Program serves as a bridge to other organizations and federal research labs that share the mission of enhancing the manufacturing community.

    In 2017, the MEP National Network connected with 26,313 manufacturers, leading to $12.6 billion in sales, $1.7 billion in cost savings, $3.5 billion in new client investments, and helping to create and retain more than 100,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs.

    The MEP program is not a Federal research and development program. It is not the intent of the program that awardees will perform systematic research.

    To learn more about the MEP program, please go to http://www.nist.gov/mep/.

    Funding Availability: NIST anticipates funding one (1) Center award for the State of Alaska with an initial five-year period of performance in accordance with the multi-year funding policy described in Section II.3. of the corresponding NOFO. Funding for the award listed below is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. The table below lists the state identified for funding as part of the corresponding NOFO and the estimated amount of funding available:

    MEP center location and assigned
  • geographical service area
  • (by state)
  • Anticipated annual
  • Federal funding for each year of the award
  • Total Federal funding for 5 year award period
    Alaska $500,000 $2,500,000

    Applicants may propose annual Federal funding amounts that are different from the anticipated annual Federal funding amount set forth in the above table, provided that the total amount of Federal funding being requested by an applicant does not exceed the total amount of Federal funding for the five-year award period as set forth in the above table. For example, if the anticipated annual Federal funding amount for an MEP Center is $500,000 and the total Federal funding amount for the five-year award period is $2,500,000, an applicant may propose Federal funding amounts greater, less than, or equal to $500,000 for any year or years of the award, so long as the total amount of Federal funding being requested by the applicant for the entire five-year award period does not exceed $2,500,000.

    Multi-Year Funding Policy. When an application for a multi-year award is approved, funding will usually be provided for only the first year of the project. Recipients will be required to submit detailed budgets and budget narratives prior to the award of any continued funding. Continued funding for the remaining years of the project will be awarded by NIST on a non-competitive basis, and may be adjusted higher or lower from year-to-year of the award, contingent upon satisfactory performance, continued relevance to the mission and priorities of the program, and the availability of Federal funds. Continuation of an award to extend the period of performance and/or to increase or decrease funding is at the sole discretion of NIST.

    Potential for Additional 2 Years. Initial awards issued pursuant to the corresponding NOFO are expected to be for up to five (5) years with the possibility for NIST to renew the award, on a non-competitive basis, for an additional two (2) year period at the end of the initial award period (i.e., up to a total of seven (7) years). As discussed in Section VI.3.d. of the corresponding NOFO, renewal funding for MEP Centers is contingent, in part, upon successful annual and panel reviews, and Secretarial evaluations in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278k(g) and 15 CFR 290.8.

    Kick-Off Conference

    A recipient will be required to attend a kick-off conference, which will be held within 30 days post start date of award, to help ensure that the MEP Center operator has a clear understanding of the program and its components. The kick-off conference will take place at NIST MEP headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD, during which time NIST will: (1) Orient MEP Center key personnel to the MEP program; (2) explain program and financial reporting requirements and procedures; (3) identify available resources that can enhance the capabilities of the MEP Center; and (4) negotiate and develop a detailed three-year operating plan with the recipient. NIST MEP anticipates an additional set of site visits at the MEP Center and/or telephonic meetings with the recipient to finalize the three-year operating plan.

    The kick-off conference will take up to approximately three days and must be attended by the MEP Center Director, along with up to two additional MEP Center employees. Applicants must include travel and related costs for the kick-off conference as part of the budget for year one (1), and these costs should be reflected in the SF-424A form. (See Section IV.2.a.(2). of the corresponding NOFO). These costs must also be reflected in the budget table and budget narrative for Year 1, which is submitted as part of the budget summary tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section IV.2.a.(6).(e). of the corresponding NOFO). Representatives from key subrecipients and other key strategic partners may attend the kick-off conference with the prior written approval of the Grants Officer. Applicants proposing to have key subrecipients and/or other key strategic partners attend the kick-off conference should clearly indicate that fact as part of the budget narrative for year one of the project.

    MEP Network-Wide Meetings

    NIST MEP typically organizes network-wide meetings several times a year to share best practices, new and emerging trends, and additional topics of interest. These meetings are rotated throughout the United States and typically involve 3-4 days of resource time and associated travel costs for each meeting.

    Applicants must include travel and related costs for approximately two (2) MEP network-wide meetings in each of the five (5) project years (2 meetings per year; 10 total meetings over five-year award period). These costs must be reflected in the MEP Budget Summary form (see Section IV.2.a.(2). of the corresponding NOFO). These costs must be reflected in the budget summary tables and budget narratives for each of the project's five (5) years, which are submitted in the budget summary tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section IV.2.a.(6).(e). of the corresponding NOFO). A budget summary table and narrative template for Year 1 and budget summary table for Years 2-5 is available on the MEP website, https://www.nist.gov/mep/manufacturing-extension-partnership-center-alaska.

    Cost Share or Matching Requirement: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278k(e)(2), the minimum non-Federal cost share for MEP Center cooperative agreements is 50 percent of the total approved project budget, which is determined on an annual basis. The MEP statute requires that minimum cost share requirements must be met annually; there can be no carryover of excess cost share from one year to the next.

    Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal Government. The applicant's share of the MEP Center expenses may include cash, services, and third-party in-kind contributions, as described at 2 CFR 200.306. The source and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind donations, must be documented in the budget tables and budget narratives submitted with the application and will be considered as part of the review under the evaluation criterion found in Section V.1.c.ii. of the corresponding NOFO.

    Recipients must meet the minimum non-Federal cost share requirements for each year of the award, with each such year being distinct and unique for cost-share purposes. Cost-share cannot be “carried” forward from one year to the next under this program. For purposes of the MEP program, “program income” (as defined in 2 CFR 200.80, as applicable) generated by an MEP Center may be used by a recipient towards the required non-Federal cost share under an MEP award.

    As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-Federal cost sharing must be an allowable/eligible cost under this program and under the Federal cost principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E. Non-Federal cost sharing incorporated into the budget of an approved MEP cooperative agreement is subject to audit in the same general manner as Federal award funds. See 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.

    As set forth in Section IV.2.a.(7) of the corresponding NOFO, a letter of commitment is required from an authorized representative of the applicant, stating the total amount of cost share to be contributed by the applicant towards the proposed MEP Center. Letters of commitment for all other third-party sources of non-Federal cost sharing identified in a proposal are not required but are strongly encouraged.

    Eligibility: The eligibility requirements set forth in 15 U.S.C. 278k(a)(5) and in Section III.1. of the corresponding NOFO will be used in lieu of and to the extent they are inconsistent with will supersede the eligibility requirements provided in the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.5(a)(1). Each applicant for and recipient of an MEP award must be a United States-based nonprofit institution, or consortium thereof, an institution of higher education, or a State, United States territory, local, or tribal government. Existing MEP awardees and new applicants that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in Section III.1. of the corresponding NOFO may apply. An eligible organization may work individually or may include proposed subawards to eligible organizations or proposed contracts with any other organization as part of the applicant's proposal, effectively forming a team. However, as discussed in Section I.4. of the corresponding NOFO, NIST generally will not fund applications that propose an organizational or operational structure that, in whole or in part, delegates or transfers to another person, institution, or organization the applicant's responsibility for core MEP Center management and Oversight functions. In addition, the applicant must have or propose an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance structure or plan for establishing a board structure within 90 calendar days from the award start date (Refer to Section I.3. of the corresponding NOFO). In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278k(e)(2), the minimum non-Federal cost share for MEP Center cooperative agreements is 50 percent of the total approved project budget, which is determined on an annual basis. The MEP statute requires that minimum cost share requirements must be met annually; there can be no carryover of excess cost share from one year to the next. See Section III.2. of the corresponding NOFO for more information on the non-Federal cost sharing requirements under MEP awards.

    Application Requirements: Applications must be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section IV. of the corresponding NOFO announcement, which are in lieu of and to the extent they are inconsistent with will supersede any application requirements set forth in 15 CFR 290.5. See specifically Sections IV.2.a.(1)., IV.2.a.(2)., and IV.2.a.(7). in the Full Announcement Text of the corresponding NOFO.

    Application/Review Information: The evaluation criteria, selection factors, and the review and selection process provided in this section will be used for this competition and are consistent with the evaluation requirements set forth in 15 U.S.C. 278k(f)(5)(B). To the extent that the evaluation criteria, selection factors or the review and selection process contained in the corresponding NOFO are inconsistent with the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.6 and 290.7, the evaluation criteria, selection factors and the review and selection process contained in the corresponding NOFO will control.

    Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating applications and assigned weights, with a maximum score of 100, are listed below.

    a. Project Narrative. (40 points; Sub-criteria i through iv will be weighted equally). NIST/MEP will evaluate the extent to which the applicant's Project Narrative demonstrates how the applicant's methodology will efficiently and effectively establish an MEP Center and provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small and medium-sized manufacturers in the applicable State-wide geographical service area identified in Section II.2. of the corresponding NOFO. Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating the Project Narrative:

    i. Center Strategy. Reviewers will assess the applicant's strategy proposed for the Center to deliver services that meet manufacturers' needs, generate client impacts (e.g., cost savings, increased sales, etc.), and support a strong manufacturing ecosystem. Reviewers will assess the quality with which the applicant:

    • Incorporates the market analysis described in the criterion set forth in paragraph a.ii.(1) below and Section V.1.a.ii.(1). of the corresponding NOFO to inform strategies, products and services;

    • defines a strategy for delivering services that balances market penetration with impact and revenue generation, addressing the needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small and medium-sized manufacturers;

    • defines the Center's existing and/or proposed roles and relationships with other entities in the State's manufacturing ecosystem, including State, regional, and local agencies, economic development organizations and educational institutions such as universities and community or technical colleges, industry associations, and other appropriate entities;

    • plans to engage with other entities in Statewide and/or regional advanced manufacturing initiatives; and

    • supports achievements of the MEP mission and objectives while also satisfying the interests of other stakeholders, investors, and partners.

    ii. Market Understanding. Reviewers will assess the strategy proposed for the Center to define the target market, understand the needs of manufacturers (especially Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)), and to define appropriate services to meet identified needs. Reviewers will evaluate the proposed approach for regularly updating this understanding through the five years. The following sub-topics will be evaluated and given equal weight:

    (1) Market Segmentation. Reviewers will assess the quality and extent of the applicant's market segmentation strategy including:

    • Segmentation of company size, geography, and industry priorities including some consideration of rural, start-up (a manufacturing establishment that has been in operation for five years or less) and/or very small manufacturers as appropriate to the state;

    • alignment with state and/or regional initiatives; and

    • other important factors identified by the applicant.

    (2) Needs Identification and Product/Service Offerings. Reviewers will assess the quality and extent of the applicant's proposed needs identification and proposed products and services for both sales growth and operational improvement in response to the applicant's market segmentation and understanding assessed by reviewers under paragraph a.ii.(1) above and Section V.1.a.ii.(1) of the corresponding NOFO. Of particular interest, is the applicant's ability to:

    • Leverage new manufacturing technologies, techniques and processes usable by small and medium-sized manufacturers through technology diffusion and transfer; and,

    • support a stronger training and education ecosystem in support of manufacturing workforce needs in the state.

    iii. Business Model. Reviewers will assess the quality, feasibility and potential efficacy and efficiency of the applicant's proposed business model for the Center as provided in the Project Narrative, Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational Structure and Management, and the Budget Tables and Budget Narratives sections of its Technical Proposal, submitted under section IV.2.a.(6). of the corresponding NOFO, and the likelihood that the proposed business model will result in the Center's ability to successfully execute the strategy evaluated under criterion set forth in paragraph a.1. above and Section V.1.a.i. of the corresponding NOFO, based on the market understanding evaluated under criterion set forth in paragraph a.ii. above and Section V.1.a.ii. of the corresponding NOFO. The following sub-topics will be evaluated and given equal weight:

    (1) Outreach and Service Delivery to the Market. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center is organized to:

    • Identify, reach and provide proposed services to key market segments and individual manufacturers described above;

    • work with a manufacturer's leadership in strategic discussions related to new technologies, new products and new markets; and

    • leverage the applicant's past experience in working with small and medium-sized manufacturers as a basis for future programmatic success.

    (2) Partnership Leverage and Linkages. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center will make effective use of resources or partnerships with third parties such as industry, universities, community/technical colleges, nonprofit economic development organizations, and Federal, State and Local Government Agencies in the Center's business model.

    iv. Performance Measurement and Management. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the applicant will use a systematic approach to measuring and managing performance including the:

    • Quality and extent of the applicant's stated goals, milestones and outcomes described by operating year (year 1, year 2, etc.);

    • applicant's utilization of client-based business results important to stakeholders in understanding program impact; and

    • depth of the proposed methodology for program management and internal evaluation likely to ensure effective operations and oversight for meeting program and service delivery objectives.

    b. Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational Structure and Management; and Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance (30 points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be weighted equally). Reviewers will assess the ability of the key personnel, the applicant's management structure and Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance to deliver the program and services envisioned for the Center. Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating the qualifications of the applicant and of program management:

    i. Key Personnel, Organizational Structure and Management. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the:

    • Proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education in manufacturing, outreach, program management and partnership development to support achievements of the MEP mission and objectives;

    • proposed management structure and organizational roles are aligned to plan, direct, monitor, organize and control the monetary resources of the proposed center to achieve its business objectives (Refer to Section I.4. of the corresponding NOFO);

    • proposed organizational structure flows logically from the specified approach to the market and products and service offerings; and

    • proposed field staff structure sufficiently supports the geographic concentrations and industry targets for the region.

    ii. Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the:

    • Proposed Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and its operations are complete, appropriate and will meet the program's objectives at the time of award, or, if such an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee does not exist at the time of application or is not expected to meet these requirements at the time of award, the extent to which the proposed plan for developing and implementing such an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee within 90 days of award start date (expected to be January 1, 2019) is feasible. (Refer to Section I.3. of the corresponding NOFO).

    • Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance is engaged with overseeing and guiding the Center and supports its own development through a schedule of regular meetings, and processes ensuring Oversight Board or Advisory Committee involvement in strategic planning, recruitment, selection and retention of board members, board assessment practices and board development initiatives (Refer to Section I.3. of the corresponding NOFO).

    c. Budget and Financial Plan. (30 points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be weighted equally). Reviewers will assess the suitability and focus of the applicant's five (5) year budget. The application will be assessed in the following areas:

    i. Budget. Reviewers will assess the extent to which:

    • The proposed financial plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model over the five (5) year project plan;

    • the proposed projections for income and expenditures are appropriate for the scale of services that are to be delivered by the proposed Center and the service delivery model envisioned within the context of the overall financial model over the five (5) year project plan;

    • a reasonable ramp-up or scale-up scope and budget has the Center fully operational by the 4th year of the project; and

    • the proposal's narrative for each of the budgeted items explains the rationale for each of the budgeted items, including assumptions the applicant used in budgeting for the Center.

    ii. Quality of the Financial Plan for Meeting the Award's Non-Federal Cost Share Requirements Over 5 Years. Reviewers will assess the quality of and extent to which the:

    • Applicant clearly describes the total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash and in-kind, in their proposed budget.

    • applicant's funding commitments for cost share are documented by letters of support from the applicant, proposed sub-recipients and any other partners identified and meet the basic matching requirements of the program;

    • applicant's cost share meets basic requirements of allowability, allocability and reasonableness under applicable federal costs principles set forth in 2 CFR 200, subpart E; and

    • the overall proposed financial plan is sufficiently robust and diversified so as to support the long-term sustainability of the Center throughout the five (5) years of the project plan.

    Selection Factors: The Selection Factors for this notice as set forth here and in Section V.3. of the corresponding NOFO are as follows:

    a. The availability of Federal funds;

    b. The type and percentage of funding and in-kind commitment from other sources, such as 3rd party In-Kind.

    c. Relevance of the proposed project to MEP program goals and policy objectives;

    d. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments;

    e. The geographical diversity and extent of the service area;

    f. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal agencies; and

    g. Whether the application complements or supports other Administration priorities, or projects supported by DoC or other Federal agencies, such as but not limited to the Manufacturing USA.

    Review and Selection Process

    Proposals, reports, documents and other information related to applications submitted to NIST and/or relating to financial assistance awards issued by NIST will be reviewed and considered by Federal employees, Federal agents and contractors, and/or by non-Federal personnel who enter into or are subject to appropriate confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements covering such information.

    (1) Initial Administrative Review of Applications. An initial review of timely received applications will be conducted to determine eligibility, completeness, and responsiveness to this notice and the corresponding NOFO and the scope of the stated program objectives. Applications determined to be ineligible, incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be eliminated from further review. However, NIST, in its sole discretion, may continue the review process for an application that is missing non-substantive information that can easily be rectified or cured.

    (2) Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Applications. Applications that are determined to be eligible, complete, and responsive will proceed for full reviews in accordance with the review and selection processes below.

    (3) Evaluation and Review. Each application will be reviewed by at least three technically qualified individual reviewers who will evaluate each application based on the evaluation criteria (see Evaluation Criteria section of this notice and Section V.1. of the corresponding NOFO). Applicants may receive written follow-up questions in order for the reviewers to gain a better understanding of the applicant's proposal. Each reviewer will provide a written technical assessment against the evaluation criteria and based on that assessment will assign each application a numeric score, with a maximum score of 100. If a non-Federal reviewer is used, the reviewers may discuss the applications with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.

    Applicants whose applications receive an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists. If deemed necessary, finalists will be invited to participate with reviewers in a conference call and/or a video conference, and/or finalists will be invited to participate in a site visit that will be conducted by the same reviewers at the applicant's location. In any event, if there are two (2) or more finalists within a state, conference calls, video conferences or site visits will be conducted with each finalist. Finalists will be reviewed and evaluated, and reviewers may revise their assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria (see Evaluation Criteria section of this notice and Section V.1. of the corresponding NOFO) as a result of the conference call, video conference, and/or site visit.

    (4) Ranking and Selection. Based upon an average of the technical reviewers' final scores, an adjectival rating will be assigned to each application in accordance with the following scale:

    Fundable, Outstanding (91-100 points);

    Fundable, Very Good (81-90 points);

    Fundable (70-80 points); or

    Unfundable (0-69 points).

    For decision-making purposes, applications receiving the same adjectival rating will be considered to have an equivalent ranking, although their technical review scores, while comparable, may not necessarily be the same.

    The Selecting Official is the Director of NIST MEP or her designee. The Selecting Official makes the final recommendation to the NIST Grants Officer regarding the funding of applications under this notice and the corresponding NOFO. The Selecting Official shall be provided all applications, all the scores and technical assessments of the reviewers, and all information obtained from the applicants during the evaluation, review and negotiation processes.

    The Selecting Official will generally select and recommend the most meritorious application for an award based on the adjectival rankings and/or one or more of the seven (7) selection factors described in the Selection Factors section of this notice and Section V.3. of the corresponding NOFO. The Selecting Official retains the discretion to select and recommend an application out of rank order (i.e., from a lower adjectival category) based on one or more of the selection factors, or to select and recommend no applications for funding. The Selecting Official's recommendation to the Grants Officer shall set forth the bases for the selection decision.

    As part of the overall review and selection process, NIST reserves the right to request that applicants provide pre-award clarifications and/or to enter into pre-award negotiations with applicants relative to programmatic, financial or other aspects of an application, such as but not limited to the revision or removal of proposed budget costs, or the modification of proposed MEP Center activities, work plans or program goals and objectives. In this regard, NIST may request that applicants provide supplemental information required by the Agency prior to award. NIST also reserves the right to reject an application where information is uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the applicant. The final approval of selected applications and issuance of awards will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the NIST Grants Officer are final.

    Federal Awarding Agency Review of Risk Posed by Applicants. After applications are proposed for funding by the Selecting Official, the NIST Grants Management Division (GMD) performs pre-award risk assessments in accordance with 2 CFR 200.205, which may include a review of the financial stability of an applicant, the quality of the applicant's management systems, the history of performance, and/or the applicant's ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements imposed on non-Federal entities. In addition, prior to making an award where the total Federal share is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), NIST GMD will review and consider the publicly available information about that applicant in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). An applicant may, at its option, review and comment on information about itself previously entered into FAPIIS by a Federal awarding agency. As part of its review of risk posed by applicants, NIST GMD will consider any comments made by the applicant in FAPIIS in making its determination about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards. Upon completion of the pre-award risk assessment, the Grants Officer will make a responsibility determination concerning whether the applicant is qualified to receive the subject award and, if so, whether appropriate specific conditions that correspond to the degree of risk posed by the applicant should be applied to an award.

    Anticipated Announcement and Award Date. Review, selection, and award processing is expected to be completed in late calendar year 2018. The anticipated start date for awards made under this notice and the corresponding NOFO is expected to be January 1, 2019.

    Additional Information

    a. Application Replacement Pages. Applicants may not submit replacement pages and/or missing documents once an application has been submitted. Any revisions must be made by submission of a new application that must be received by NIST by the submission deadline.

    b. Notification to Unsuccessful Applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing.

    c. Retention of Unsuccessful Applications. Unsuccessful applications will be retained in accordance with the General Record Schedule 1.2/021, found at https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/grs/grs01-2.pdf.

    Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements: Through 2 CFR 1327.101, the Department of Commerce adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, which apply to awards made pursuant to this notice and the corresponding NOFO. Refer to http://go.usa.gov/SBYh and http://go.usa.gov/SBg4.

    The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements: The Department of Commerce will apply the Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements dated December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78390). If the Department of Commerce publishes revised Pre-Award Notification Requirements prior to issuance of awards under this notice and the corresponding NOFO, the revised Pre-Award Notification Requirements will apply. Refer to Section VII. of the corresponding NOFO, Federal Awarding Agency Contacts, Grant Rules and Regulations for more information.

    Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM): Pursuant to 2 CFR part 25, applicants and recipients (as the case may be) are required to: (i) Be registered in SAM before submitting its application; (ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency, unless otherwise excepted from these requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 25.110. NIST will not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time that NIST is ready to make a Federal award pursuant to this notice and the corresponding NOFO, NIST may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

    Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 4040-0004, 4040-0006, 4040-0007, and 0348-0046.

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

    Certifications Regarding Federal Felony and Federal Criminal Tax Convictions, Unpaid Federal Tax Assessments and Delinquent Federal Tax Returns. In accordance with Federal appropriations law, an authorized representative of the selected applicant(s) may be required to provide certain pre-award certifications regarding federal felony and federal criminal tax convictions, unpaid federal tax assessments, and delinquent federal tax returns.

    Kevin A. Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18386 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of Interest AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Debbie Mowatt, 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    In order to fulfill its core mission, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) publishes announcements in the Federal Register of new collaborative projects to address cybersecurity challenges. In response to these announcements, technology vendors are invited to submit Letters of Interest (LoI) for technologies relevant to the challenge. These letters specify the product(s) that the potential collaborator is submitting for consideration, how the product(s) address(es) one or more of the requirements of the project, and contact information for the company's representative. Subsequent to the submission of LoIs, NIST invites companies with relevant technology to enter into a Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST.

    II. Method of Collection

    Upon request, submitters are provided with questions in an electronic document that can be filled in, signed, and submitted via mail or electronic mail.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0693-0075.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    NIST invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18388 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Information Collection System AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Bethany Hackett, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140; phone: (301) 975-6113; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This is a request to extend the expiration date of this currently approved information collection. This information is collected from all testing or calibration laboratories that apply for NVLAP accreditation. Applicants provide the minimum information necessary for NVLAP to evaluate the competency of laboratories to carry out specific tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations. The collection is mandated by 15 CFR 285.

    II. Method of Collection

    Each new or renewal applicant laboratory electronically submits its application for NVLAP accreditation through a self-service, web-based portal called the “NVLAP Interactive Web System” (NIWS). This method of collection also gives applicant laboratories the ability to upload document files needed to support the application process and to maintain their own profile information.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0693-0003.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; and Federal, State or local government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3.0 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,250.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    NIST invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18385 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; U.S. Fishermen Fishing in Russian Waters AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Elizabethann Mencher, (301) 427-8362 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart J, govern U.S. fishing in the Economic Zone of the Russian Federation. Russian authorities may permit U.S. fishermen to fish for allocations of surplus stocks in the Russian Economic Zone. Permit application information is sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for transmission to Russia. If Russian authorities issue a permit, the vessel owner or operator must submit a permit abstract report to NMFS, and also report 24 hours before leaving the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for the Russian Economic Zone and 24 hours before re-entering the U.S. EEZ after being in the Russian Economic Zone.

    The permit application information is used by Russian authorities to determine whether to issue a permit. NMFS uses the other information to help ensure compliance with Russian and U.S. fishery management regulations.

    II. Method of Collection

    Paper forms are used for applications. Submission of copies of permits, vessel abstract reports, and departure and return messages are provided by fax.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0228.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18303 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0227.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 300.

    Average Hours per Response: 5 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 25.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    NOAA asks people who operate ground receiving stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment involved, and similar subjects. Members of NOAA's Direct Broadcast User Groups are asked follow-up questions. The data obtained are used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. Collection of this data assists us in complying with the terms of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization: United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on area of common interest (2008).

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households; federal government; state, local or tribal Government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18302 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG388 Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshops.

    SUMMARY:

    Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in October, November, and December of 2018. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2019 and will be announced in a future notice.

    DATES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on October 18, November 15, and December 12, 2018. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on October 1, October 4, November 13, November 15, December 3, and December 13, 2018. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Somerville, MA; Mount Pleasant, SC; and Largo, FL. The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Manahawkin, NJ; Largo, FL; Port Saint Lucie, FL; Kenner, LA; Kitty Hawk, NC; and Ronkonkoma, NY. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details on workshop locations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding the Atlantic Shark ID and Safe Handling, Release, and ID workshops are posted on the internet at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/atlantic-shark-identification-workshops, and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/atlantic-protected-species-safe-handling-release-and.

    Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Thus, certificates that were initially issued in 2015 will be expiring in 2018. Approximately 148 free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops have been conducted since January 2008.

    Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    1. October 18, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Quality Inn, 23 Cummings Street, Somerville, MA 02145.

    2. November 15, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 1104 Isle of Palms Connector, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464.

    3. December 12, 2018, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 100 East Bay Drive, Largo, FL 33770.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at [email protected] or at (386) 852-8588. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:

    • Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.

    • Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.

    Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops

    Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Certificates issued in 2015 will be expiring in 2018. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 286 free Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.

    In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.

    Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations

    1. October 1, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.

    2. October 4, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 210 Seminole Boulevard, Largo, FL 33774.

    3. November 13, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 10120 South U.S. Highway 1, Port Saint Lucie, FL 34952.

    4. November 15, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.

    5. December 3, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.

    6. December 13, 2018, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Marriott Courtyard, 5000 Express Drive South, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779.

    Registration

    To register for a scheduled Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158. Pre-registration is highly recommended, but not required.

    Registration Materials

    To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:

    • Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.

    • Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.

    • Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.

    Workshop Objectives

    The Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants with the skills needed to reduce the mortality of protected species and prohibited sharks, which may prevent additional regulations on these fisheries in the future.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18349 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Date added to the Procurement List: September 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 4/27/2018 (83 FR 82), 5/3/2018 (83 FR 86), 6/8/2018 (83 FR 111), 6/15/2018 (83 FR 116), and 7/27/2018 (83 FR 145), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-605-7311—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, XXSM 8415-01-605-7315—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, XSM 8415-01-605-7316—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, SM 8415-01-605-7317—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, MED 8415-01-605-7318—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, LG 8415-01-605-7319—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, XLG 8415-01-605-7321—Coverall, Fuel Handlers, Type II, Class III, Coyote, XXLG Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement for the U.S. Army Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division Distribution: C-List

    Public Comments: One comment was received in response to the Commission's Notice published in the Federal Register, from Federal Prison Industries (FPI) on July 5, 2018.

    The Commission's regulation, 41 CFR 51-1.2, states “Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has priority, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4124, over nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities in furnishing commodities for sale to the Government. All or a portion of the Government's requirement for a commodity for which Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has exercised its priority may be added to the Procurement List. However, such addition is made with the understanding that procurement under the JWOD Act shall be limited to that portion of the Government's requirement for the commodity which is not available or not required to be procured from Federal Prison Industries, Inc.”

    Accordingly, as required by 41 CFR 51-3.3(d), NIB “obtain(ed) a decision from Federal Prison Industries on the exercise or waiver of its priority” and consistent with 41 CFR 51-3.3(e), provided a copy of the decision to the Commission.

    In this case, FPI initially exercised its priority and denied the waiver, and stated this in its public comment to the Commission. FPI however had subsequently issued a partial waiver to NIB, by email dated on June 15, 2018, stating, “After careful consideration, FPI will waive the coverall for a period of two years (6/2018—6/2020).”

    Commission Response to Final Federal Register Comment: The U.S. AbilityOne Commission received one comment to its initial Federal Register Notice of June 8, 2018 (Vol. 83, No. 111) from Federal Prison Industries (FPI). In its comment, FPI stated that it had denied the waiver of FPI's priority, requested by National Industries for the Blind (NIB) pursuant to 41 CFR 51-3.3(e). Prior to the receipt of the public comment, however, on June 15, 2018, FPI had issued a partial waiver, not to exceed two (2) years. Based on the partial waiver, the Commission determined to add the Fuel Handlers Coveralls to the Procurement List.

    NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 2540-00-587-2532—Tarpaulin, Green, 12′ x 17′ 2540-01-330-8062—Tarpaulin, Tan, 12′ x 17′ Mandatory Source of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime

    Public Comments: One comment was received in response to the Commission's Notice published in the Federal Register, from Federal Prison Industries (FPI) on May 22, 2018.

    The Commission's regulation, 41 CFR 51-1.2, states “Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has priority, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4124, over nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities in furnishing commodities for sale to the Government. All or a portion of the Government's requirement for a commodity for which Federal Prison Industries, Inc. has exercised its priority may be added to the Procurement List. However, such addition is made with the understanding that procurement under the JWOD Act shall be limited to that portion of the Government's requirement for the commodity which is not available or not required to be procured from Federal Prison Industries, Inc.”

    Accordingly, as required in 41 CFR 51-3.3(d), NIB “obtain(ed) a decision from Federal Prison Industries on the exercise or waiver of its priority” and consistent with 41 CFR 51-3.3(e), provided a copy of that decision to the Commission.

    In this case, FPI initially exercised its priority and denied the waiver, as it stated in its public comment to the Commission. Subsequent to that decision, FPI issued a partial waiver to NIB, signed and dated July 1, 2018, stating, “FPI will waive this item for 12 months (7/1/2018—6/30/2019).”

    Commission Response to Federal Register Comment: The U.S. AbilityOne Commission received one comment in response to its initial Federal Register Notice of April 27, 2018 (Vol. 83, No. 82) from Federal Prison Industries (FPI). In its comment, FPI stated that it had denied the waiver of FPI's priority as requested by National Industries for the Blind (NIB) pursuant to 41 CFR 51-3.3(e). Subsequent to the waiver denial, FPI issued a partial waiver on July 1, 2018, not to exceed twelve (12) months, from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018. Based on the partial waiver, the Commission determined to add the tarpaulins to the Procurement List.

    NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8405-00-NIB-0542—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 131/2 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0543—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 141/2 x 30 8405-00-NIB-0544—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 141/2 x 31 8405-00-NIB-0545—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 141/2 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0546—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 141/2 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0547—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 141/2 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0548—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 141/2 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0549—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 30 8405-00-NIB-0550—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0551—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0552—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0553—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 30 8405-00-NIB-0554—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 31 8405-00-NIB-0555—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0556—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0557—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0558—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0559—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 151/2 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0560—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 30 8405-00-NIB-0561—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 31 8405-00-NIB-0562—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0563—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0564—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0565—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0566—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0567—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 37 8405-00-NIB-0568—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 31 8405-00-NIB-0569—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0570—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0571—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0572—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0573—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0574—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 161/2 x 37 8405-00-NIB-0575—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 31 8405-00-NIB-0576—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0577—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0578—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0579—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0580—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0581—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 171/2 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0582—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 171/2 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0583—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 171/2 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0584—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 171/2 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0585—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 171/2 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0586—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0587—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0588—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0589—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0590—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0591—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 37 8405-00-NIB-0592—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 181/2 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0593—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 181/2 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0594—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 181/2 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0595—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 181/2 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0596—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 181/2 x 37 8405-00-NIB-0597—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 181/2 x 38 8405-00-NIB-0598—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 18 x 32 8405-00-NIB-0599—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 18 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0600—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 18 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0601—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 18 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0602—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 18 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0603—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 18 x 37 8405-00-NIB-0604—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 19 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0605—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 19 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0606—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 19 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0607—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 19 x 36 8405-00-NIB-0608—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 19 x 37 8405-00-NIB-0609—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 20 x 33 8405-00-NIB-0610—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 20 x 34 8405-00-NIB-0611—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 20 x 35 8405-00-NIB-0612—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, Men's, Long Sleeve, White, 20 x 36 8410-00-NIB-0031—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, XOS 8410-00-NIB-0032—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 18L 8410-00-NIB-0033—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 2S 8410-00-NIB-0034—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 2R 8410-00-NIB-0035—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 4S 8410-00-NIB-0036—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 4R 8410-00-NIB-0037—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 4L 8410-00-NIB-0038—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 6S 8410-00-NIB-0039—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 6R 8410-00-NIB-0040—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 6L 8410-00-NIB-0041—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 8S 8410-00-NIB-0042—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 8R 8410-00-NIB-0043—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 8L 8410-00-NIB-0044—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 10S 8410-00-NIB-0045—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 10R 8410-00-NIB-0046—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 10L 8410-00-NIB-0047—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 12S 8410-00-NIB-0048—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 12R 8410-00-NIB-0049—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 12L 8410-00-NIB-0050—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 14S 8410-00-NIB-0051—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 14R 8410-00-NIB-0052—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 14L 8410-00-NIB-0053—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 16S 8410-00-NIB-0054—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 16R 8410-00-NIB-0055—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 16L 8410-00-NIB-0056—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 18R 8410-00-NIB-0057—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, USMC, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, XOR 8410-00-NIB-0058—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 32 x 12 8410-00-NIB-0059—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 32 x 13 8410-00-NIB-0060—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 34 x 12 8410-00-NIB-0061—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 34 x 13 8410-00-NIB-0062—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 34 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0063—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 34 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0064—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 36 x 13 8410-00-NIB-0065—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 36 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0066—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 36 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0067—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 38 x 13 8410-00-NIB-0068—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 38 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0069—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 38B x 15N 8410-00-NIB-0070—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 38 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0071—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 40 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0072—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 40 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0073—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 40 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0074—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 42 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0075—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 42 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0076—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 44 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0077—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 44 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0078—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 44 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0079—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 46 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0080—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 46 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0081—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 46 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0082—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 46 x 17 8410-00-NIB-0083—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 48 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0084—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 48 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0085—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 48 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0086—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 48 x 17 8410-00-NIB-0087—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 50 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0088—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 50 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0089—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 50 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0090—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 50B x 17N 8410-00-NIB-0091—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 50 x 18 8410-00-NIB-0092—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 52 x 14 8410-00-NIB-0093—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 52 x 15 8410-00-NIB-0094—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 52 x 16 8410-00-NIB-0095—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Navy, Women's, Short Sleeve, White, 52 x 17 Mandatory for: 100% of the requirements of Federal Prison Industries Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Federal Prison System Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5180-00-NIB-0025—Tool, Kit Refrigeration, Individual 5180-00-NIB-0026—Tool Kit, Refrigeration, Base Mandatory for: 100% of the requirements of the U.S. Army Mandatory Source of Supply: Beyond Vision, Milwaukee, WI Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Contracting Command—Warren Distribution: C-List Service Service Type: Document Destruction Service Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center, 3990 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Greene, Inc., Xenia, OH Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Contracting SVCS Off Columbus Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18394 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Notice, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a document in the Federal Register of August 17, 2018 concerning a notice of Proposed Addition and Deletions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 17, 2018, in FR Doc. 83 FR 41064-41065, the Committee would like to correct the notice to include the Mandatory for and Distribution for the product (Disposable Dinnerware Kit). The Committee would also like to correct the notice to include the Service Type and Description of the Product being proposed for deletion.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: September 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7360-00-139-0480—Disposable Dinnerware Kit Mandatory Source of Supply: Expanco, Inc., Fort Worth, TX Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: C-List Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s) COE001—Blazer COE002—Blazer COE004—Shirt COE005—Shirt COE006—Shirt COE007—Shirt COE008—Tab Bow COE009—Tie COE010—Tie Tac COE011—Pants COE012—Pants COE013—Skirt COE014A—Shirt COE014B—Shirt COE015B—Shirt COE015A—Shirt COE016A—Trousers COE016B—Trousers COE018—Cap COE027—Shirt COE032—pants COE033—Pants COE034A—Gloves COE034B—Gloves Mandatory Source of Supply: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: W072 ENDIST Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-00-NSH-0114—Remanufactured Ink Cartridges, Black Mandatory Source of Supply: TRI Industries NFP, Vernon Hills, IL Contracting Activity: Kansas City Acquisition Branch, Kansas City, MO Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: VA Outpatient Clinic, Mobile, AL Mandatory Source of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL Contracting Activity: Veterans Affairs, Department of, NAC Service Type: Janitorial Service Mandatory for: Naval Operations Support Center (NOSC) Bldgs. 245 and 247, Cheyenne, WY Mandatory Source of Supply: Skils'kin, Spokane, WA Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Navy, NAVFAC Northwest Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Orlando VA Medical Center, 2500 Leahy Avenue, Orlando, FL Mandatory Source of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL Contracting Activity: Veterans Affairs, Department of, 675—Orlando Service Type: Food Service Attendant Service Mandatory for: USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Otis Methods Dev. Center, Building 1398, Otis ANG Base, MA Mandatory Source of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK Service Type: Laundry Service Mandatory for: Aiken CBOC, 951 Milbrook Avenue, Aiken, SC Athens VA CBOC, 9249 Highway 29 South, Athens, GA Carl Vinson VA Medical Center, 1826 Veterans Boulevard, Dublin, GA Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center Uptown Division, 1 Freedom Way, Augusta, GA Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center Downtown Division, 800 Balie Street, Augusta, GA Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, 109 Bee Street, Charleston, SC W.J.B. Dorn VA Medical Center, 6439 Garners Ferry Road, Columbia, SC Mandatory Source of Supply: GINFL Services, Inc., Jacksonville, FL Contracting Activity: Veterans Affairs, Department of, 247—Network Contract Office 7 Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18392 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and services from the Procurement List that was previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: September 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8115-00-935-5887—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 86″ x 313/4″ x 41″ 8115-00-935-6525—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 57″ x 313/4″ x 41″ 8115-00-935-6526—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 43″ x 313/4″ x 41″ 8115-00-935-6527—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 29″ x 313/4″ x 41″ 8115-00-935-6528—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 58″ x 43″ x 41″ 8115-00-935-6530—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 86″ x 313/4″ x 211/2 8115-00-935-6531—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 43″ x 313/4″ x 211/2 8115-00-935-6532—Box, Shipping Cleated Plywood, 313/4″ x 29″ x 211/2 Mandatory Source of Supply: Helena Industries, Inc., Helena, MT Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Services Service Type: Laundry Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Command, Norfolk, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Rappahannock Goodwill Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Food Service Attendant Service Mandatory for: Norfolk Naval Shipyard: Bldgs: 1SJ-4SJ, 6SJ-8SJ, 11SJ, 12SJ, 14SJ, 19, 26SJ, 38SJ, 41, 43SJ, 51, 59, 67, 69SJ, 79SJ, 82SJ, 89SJ, 91SJ, 94SJ, 124SJ, 164SJ-168SJ, 170SJ-172SJ, + 38 add'l bldgs., Portsmouth, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Portco, Inc., Portsmouth, VA Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Laundry Service Mandatory for: Transient Personnel Unit, BEQ & BOQ: Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Center, San Diego, CA; San Diego Naval Air Station: Galley Building 794, San Diego, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Naval & Marine Corps Reserve Center, Lehigh Valley, PA Mandatory Source of Supply: Via of the Lehigh Valley, Inc., Bethlehem, PA Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Document Processing Service Mandatory for: Office of Transportation Audits: 18th & F Streets NW, Washington, DC Mandatory Source of Supply: Linden Resources, Inc., Arlington, VA Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition Service, GSA/FSS Information Technology Center Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18393 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), in OMB, within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0033.”

    By email addressed to: [email protected] or

    By mail addressed to: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington DC 20503.

    A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by any of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0033.”

    By mail addressed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581;

    • By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or

    • Through the Commission's website at http://comments.cftc.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments through the website.

    A copy of the supporting statement for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting http://RegInfo.gov.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1 The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the ICR will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Schwartz, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 416-5958; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0033.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Notification of Pending Legal Proceedings Pursuant to 17 CFR 1.60 (OMB Control Number 3038-0033.) This is a request for extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Rule 1.60 of the Commission's Part 1 regulations requires every designated contract market (“DCM”) and futures commission merchant (“FCM”) to submit to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) certain specified information concerning pending legal proceedings to which the DCM or FCM is a party or to which its property is subject.2 This renewal updates the total requested burden based on available reported data.

    2 17 CFR 1.60 (2018).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. On June 6, 2018, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 83 FR 26269 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission originally estimated that 79 entities would be affected by this rule. That number was based on the number of active registered DCMs (16) and FCMs (63).3 These numbers remain current, and the Commission did not receive any substantial comments on the 60-Day Notice.

    3 83 FR 26269 (Jun. 6, 2018).

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 0.20 hours per response, once annually. This estimate includes providing the Commission with notice and copies of specified legal documents.

    Respondents/Effective Entities: DCMs and FCMs.

    Estimated Number of Respondents/Responses: 79.4

    4 The current number of registrants, 79, has decreased from the previous 105 in 2015, due to a drop in registration.

    Estimated Average Annual Burden Hours per Respondent: 0.20.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15.8.5

    5 Accordingly, the total annual burden on respondents has also been reduced, from 21 hours (105 × 0.20 = 21) in 2015 to 15.8 currently.

    Frequency of Collection: Once annually.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: August 21, 2018. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18330 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2018-HQ-0009] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Marketing Army Civilian Employment Survey; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,667.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide the data needed to understand the best marketing strategies to raise awareness of Army civilian employment opportunities with the ultimate goal of filling critical Department of the Army occupations.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18375 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD announces an early engagement opportunity regarding implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 within the acquisition regulations.

    DATES:

    Early inputs should be submitted in writing via the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) website shown below. The website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit early inputs via the DARS website at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Send inquiries via email to [email protected] and reference “Early Engagement Opportunity: Implementation of NDAA for FY 2019” in the subject line.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DoD is providing an opportunity for the public to provide early inputs on implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 within the acquisition regulations. The public is invited to submit early inputs on sections of the NDAA for FY 2019 via the DARS website at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/index.html. The website will be updated when early inputs will no longer be accepted. Please note, this venue does not replace or circumvent the rulemaking process; DARS will engage in formal rulemaking, in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1303, when it has been determined that rulemaking is required to implement a section of the NDAA for FY 2019 within the acquisition regulations.

    Jennifer Lee Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18357 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0057] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, ATTN: Mark E. Ryan or email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: PFPA Recruitment, Medical, and Fitness Forms; PFPA Form 1400, PFPA Form 6040, PFPA Form 1407, PFPA Form 1410, PFPA Form 1408, PFPA Form 1409 and DA Form 4700; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection is essential to PFPA and is used to make a determination of fitness for federal employment in the field of law enforcement. To that end, criminal, background and medical information is collected on the applicants.

    Information Being Collected From Applicants (PFPA Form 1400, PFPA Form 6040, and DA Form 4700)

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 220.

    Number of Respondents: 240.

    Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Annual Responses: 720.

    Average Burden per Response: 18.33 minutes.

    Frequency: As required.

    Information Being Collected From Former Supervisors (PFPA Form 1407 and PFPA Form 1410)

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 240.

    Number of Respondents: 1,920.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,920.

    Average Burden per Response: 7.5 minutes.

    Frequency: As required.

    Information Being Collected From References (PFPA Form 1409)

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 160.

    Number of Respondents: 960.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 960.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: As required.

    Information Being Collected From Other Law Enforcement Agencies (PFPA Form 1408)

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 20.

    Number of Respondents: 240.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 240.

    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

    Frequency: As required.

    These forms collect information from applicants, former supervisors, character references and other law enforcement agencies that the applicants have applied to.

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18391 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2240-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Yavi Energy, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Yavi Energy, 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 September 10, 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 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18320 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2336-094] Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests; Georgia Power Company

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.

    b. Project No.: 2336-094.

    c. Dated Filed: July 3, 2018.

    d. Submitted By: Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power).

    e. Name of Project: Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Ocmulgee River in Butts, Henry, Jasper, and Newton Counties, Georgia. No federal lands have been identified within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's Regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Courtenay R. O'Mara, P.E., Hydro Licensing and Compliance Supervisor, Southern Company Generation, 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NE, BIN 10193, Atlanta, GA 30308-3374; (404) 506-7219, or [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Navreet Deo at (202) 502-6304, or email at [email protected]

    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. With this notice, we are designating Georgia Power as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. Georgia Power filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy of the PAD is also available for inspection and reproduction at https://www.georgiapower.com/company/energy-industry/generating-plants/lloyd-shoals-dam-project.html, or the address in paragraph h.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2336-094.

    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by November 5, 2018.

    p. We intend to prepare an environmental assessment (EA). Nevertheless, the meetings listed below will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or an Environmental Impact Statement is issued by the Commission.

    Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

    Daytime Scoping Meeting—Jackson, Georgia

    Date & Time: Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 9 a.m.

    Location: Pepper Sprout Barn, 562 Old Bethel Road, Jackson, Georgia 30233, (678) 752-1550.

    Evening Scoping Meeting—Jackson, Georgia

    Date & Time: Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 6:30 p.m.

    Location: Pepper Sprout Barn, 562 Old Bethel Road, Jackson, Georgia 30233, (678) 752-1550.

    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link. Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified through the scoping process.

    Environmental Site Review

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an Environmental Site Review (site visit) of the project on Friday, September 14, 2018, consisting of facility tours from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and boat tours from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. All participants should meet at the Jackson Land Management Office located at 180 Dam Road, Jackson, Georgia 30233. Participants must notify Courtenay O'Mara at [email protected], or (404) 506-7219, on or before August 29, 2018, if they plan to attend the environmental site review.

    Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.

    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.

    Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18324 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR18-35-000] Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; White Cliffs Pipeline, LLC

    Take notice that on August 16, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), White Cliffs Pipeline, L.L.C. (White Cliff), filed a declaratory order petition seeking approval of certain terms and conditions of service for White Cliffs' portion of a joint project to provide pipeline transportation of natural gas liquids (NGL) from receipt points in Weld County, Colorado to the NGL marketing hub of Mont Belvieu, Texas. The joint project is being undertaken in conjunction with DCP Wattenberg Pipeline, LLC and DCP Southern Hills Pipeline, LLC (the DCP Parties), all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 20, 2018.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18322 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2527-005; ER15-356-008; ER15-357-008; ER10-2532-011; ER10-1595-009; ER10-2533-005; ER10-1598-009; ER10-2535-006; ER10-1616-009; ER10-1618-009; ER18-1821-001.

    Applicants: Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC, Chief Keystone Power, LLC, Crescent Ridge LLC, Crete Energy Venture, LLC, GSG, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, Mendota Hills, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C., Walleye Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-936-003; ER15-960-003; ER17-1531-001; ER10-1514-003; ER13-343-009; ER13-342-013; ER16-700-002; ER16-701-002.

    Applicants: Benson Power, LLC, CPV Biomass Holdings, LLC, CPV Fairview, LLC, CPV Keenan II Renewable Energy Company, LLC, CPV Maryland, LLC, CPV Shore, LLC, CPV Towantic, LLC, CPV Valley, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Benson Power, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2118-000; ER18-2003-000; ER18-2182-000; ER18-2066-000; ER18-2067-000; ER18-1981-000; ER18-2032-000.

    Applicants: Armadillo Flats Wind Project, LLC, Lorenzo Wind, LLC, Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC, Minco Wind IV, LLC, Minco Wind V, LLC, Pratt Wind, LLC, Wildcat Ranch Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Second Amendment to July 31, 2018 et al. Armadillo Flats Wind Project, LLC tariff filing, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180814-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2246-000.

    Applicants: Heartland Divide Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Heartland Divide Wind Project, LLC Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 10/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2247-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3473 Upstream Wind Energy and Westar Energy Meter Agent Agr to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2248-000.

    Applicants: Blue Pilot Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of MBR Tariff Blue Pilot Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2250-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA/SA No. 2214; Queue No. U3-032 to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2251-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-08-20_SA 3156 ATC-CEC Project Commitment Agreement (Carmeuse) to be effective 10/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2252-000.

    Applicants: MC Project Company LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers & Blanket Approvals to be effective 8/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2253-000.

    Applicants: Martins Creek, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule Filings and Request for Waiver to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2254-000.

    Applicants: MC Project Company LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule Filings and Request for Waiver to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2255-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 265, Amendment No. 2—PV-Morgan Joint Participation to be effective 10/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-57-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ES18-58-000.

    Applicants: Baja California Power, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Baja California Power, Inc.

    Filed Date: 8/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180820-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings

    Docket Numbers: RD18-7-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard BAL-002-3.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18326 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1060-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2018 Reservation of Capacity for Prior Notice Expansions to be effective 9/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180816-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1061-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming Agmts for Coastal Bend Project to be effective 2/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5019.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1062-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Revision to Service Agreement to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1063-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing WBX Rate Implementation to be effective 9/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1064-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing MXP Rate Implementation to be effective 9/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1065-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: TCO WBX West Non-Conforming Agmt to be effective 9/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180817-5081.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    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 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18318 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2241-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Garnet Wind, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Garnet Wind, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 10, 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 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18321 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2224-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Pegasus Wind, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Pegasus Wind, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 10, 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 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18319 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0105; FRL-9982-63-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan Requirements (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plans (EPA ICR No. 1630.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0135) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on March 21, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0105 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Troy Swackhammer, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1966; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available, in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The authority for EPA's facility response plan (FRP) requirements is derived from section 311(j)(5) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. EPA's regulation is codified at 40 CFR 112.20 and 112.21 and related appendices. The purpose of an FRP is to help an owner or operator identify the necessary resources to respond to an oil spill in a timely manner. If implemented effectively, the FRP will reduce the impact and severity of oil spills and may prevent spills because of the identification of risks at the facility. Although the owner or operator is the primary data user, EPA also uses the data in certain situations to ensure that facilities comply with the regulation and to help allocate response resources. State and local governments may use the data, which are not generally available elsewhere and can greatly assist local emergency preparedness planning efforts. The EPA reviews all submitted FRPs and must approve FRPs for those facilities whose discharges may cause significant and substantial harm to the environment in order to ensure that facilities believed to pose the highest risk have planned for adequate resources and procedures to respond to a spill. None of the information collected under the FRP rule is believed to be confidential. The EPA has provided no assurances of confidentiality to facility owners or operators when they file their FRPs.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owner or operator of a facility that is required to have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan under the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112) and that could cause substantial harm to the environment, and must prepare and submit an FRP to EPA. The applicability criteria for a substantial harm facility are: (1) The facility transfers oil over water to or from a vessel and has a total storage capacity of greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons; or (2) the facility's total oil storage capacity is greater than or equal to one million gallons and one or more of the following harm factors are met: Insufficient secondary containment for aboveground storage tanks at the facility; a discharge of oil could impact fish and wildlife and sensitive environments; a discharge of oil could shut down a drinking water intake; the facility has experienced a reportable oil discharge of 10,000 gallons or more in last 5 years; or other factors considered by the Regional Administrator.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under section 311(j)(5) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

    Estimated number of respondents: 22,274 (total).

    Frequency of response: Less than once per year.

    Total estimated burden: 382,682 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated costs: $16,205,238 (per year), which includes $3,355 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 73,061 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This estimate is based on EPA's current inventory of facilities that have submitted and are maintaining an FRP as per 40 CFR part 112. EPA has not amended the FRP regulation since the last ICR renewal that would affect the per-facility burden.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18340 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0319; FRL-9981-80-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans (EPA ICR No. 1365.11, OMB Control No. 2070-0091). This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. EPA received six comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal Register of January 2, 2018, which have been addressed in the ICR that is being submitted to OMB, a copy of which is available in the docket. With this submission to OMB, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review and comment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0319, to both EPA and OMB as follows:

    • To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and

    • To OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brandon Mullings, Environmental Assistance Division, 7408M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4826; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in detail the information collection activities and the related burden and cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31, 2018. Under OMB regulations, an agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires local education agencies (LEAs) to conduct inspections, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions with respect to the presence of asbestos-containing materials in school buildings. AHERA also requires states to develop model accreditation plans for persons who perform asbestos inspections, develop management control plans, and design or conduct response actions. This information collection addresses the burden associated with recordkeeping requirements imposed on LEAs by the asbestos in schools rule, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements imposed on states and training providers related to the model accreditation plan rule.

    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR parts 763, Subpart E). Respondents may claim all or part of a document confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Local education agencies (LEAs, e.g., elementary or secondary public school districts or a private school or school system); asbestos training providers to schools and educational systems; state education departments or commissions; or state public health departments or commissions.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 763, Sub part E).

    Estimated number of respondents: 133,214 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 2,554,913 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

    Total estimated cost: $97,276,877 (per year), which includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 67,509 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects a change in the methodology to calculate the number of schools with friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM); a revision to the life span of schools using average functional age to determine the remaining life of school buildings; and a change in the rate of removal of friable ACM. This change is an adjustment, and is discussed in more detail in the ICR Supporting Statement.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18341 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9982-68-Region 3] Anacostia River Watershed: Data Solicitation in Support of Revising Total Maximum Daily Loads for Debris, Floatables, Trash AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Solicitation for data.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking readily available data and information on debris, floatables, and/or trash (hereafter referred to as “trash”) in the Anacostia River watershed for use in the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL). The Anacostia River watershed covers portions of the District of Columbia and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland. A map of the Anacostia River watershed is available from EPA Region 3's website at: https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/impaired-waters-and-tmdls-region-3.

    DATES:

    Data submissions to EPA must be received by, or postmarked on or before, October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Data submissions should be sent to Ms. Jillian Adair, Water Protection Division (3WP30), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, or by electronic mail to [email protected] Electronic mail submissions including body text and attachments are limited to 25 megabytes. In addition, EPA cannot receive electronic mail attachments in ZIP format (.zip). For additional information on submission formats, visit EPA Region 3's website at: https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/impaired-waters-and-tmdls-region-3.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Jillian Adair at (215) 814-5713 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that each State identify those waters (called “water quality-limited segments”) for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. A TMDL is an estimate of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate without violating water quality standards. This total load includes pollutants that come from end-of-pipe dischargers, stormwater runoff, surface runoff from non-permitted areas (i.e. agriculture, open areas, forest, etc.), as well as a “margin of safety”, which accounts for uncertainties in the estimated load. TMDLs are important because they provide a framework to achieve water quality standards in a watershed. TMDLs inform other federal and state programs of the necessary pollutant reductions needed by source to achieve water quality standards.

    On September 21, 2010, EPA approved a trash TMDL for the Anacostia River submitted jointly by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE). The TMDL report can be accessed at: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/ApprovedFinalTMDLs/Pages/tmdl_final_anacostia_trash.aspx.

    On September 19, 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking vacatur of EPA's approval [Civil Action No. 16-1861 (JDB)]. The Court ruled in favor of NRDC on March 30, 2018 and directed EPA to develop or approve replacement TMDLs. In light of the Court's Order, EPA is working with MDE and DOEE to determine the appropriate direction to take with developing new or revised TMDLs. An evaluation of data that has become available since approval of the original TMDLs will provide valuable insights into this determination.

    EPA would appreciate your assistance in obtaining all readily available data and other information that would benefit the development of TMDLs for trash impairments in the Anacostia River watershed. Please consider these points in responding to this solicitation:

    • Any studies, surveys or other statistically significant information on the quantities of trash that would interfere with the general population's use and enjoyment of the river for purposes such as swimming, boating and fishing. This data call is not intended as a user survey, and accordingly, EPA is not seeking the subjective views of individuals at this time.

    • Documents or datasets that provide information regarding water quality conditions and sources associated with quantities of trash in the water. Potentially relevant data sources include: trash monitoring data, trash clean-up data, trash remediation project data, municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) annual reports, etc. EPA is also interested in any other information data providers believe might be relevant.

    • Trash data can be accounted for through measurements of weight, volume, count, or other appropriate measure. While EPA acknowledges that photographs may document the presence of trash, photographs are less useful for quantifying trash. Accordingly, EPA discourages submission of photographs as a method of quantifying trash extent and impairment.

    • Please limit data submissions to only the waterbodies within the Anacostia River watershed for the period of August 2009 through present. If data collection efforts are currently underway, EPA would also appreciate an accounting of what is being collected and when it may become publicly available.

    • Data and reports delivered in electronic format are preferred, as available. Specifically, datasets in Excel or a compatible spreadsheet format will facilitate ease of use.

    • Information regarding sampling methodologies, design, conditions (i.e., time of day, weather conditions during and preceding the sampling), sampling locations (i.e., geographical coordinates, maps), peer review, and quality assurance procedures applied would also be very beneficial. Please include such information and citations where available.

    • Please include names, contacts, and affiliations with your data submission.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Dominique Lueckenhoff, Acting Director, Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18410 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9040-9] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 08/13/2018 through 08/17/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180187, Draft, GSA, CA, Otay Mesa Modernization and Expansion, Comment Period Ends: 10/09/2018, Contact: Osmahn Kadri 415-522-3617 EIS No. 20180188, Draft, USFS, ID, Crow Creek Pipeline Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 11/23/2018, Contact: Mike Duncan 208-847-0375 EIS No. 20180189, Draft Supplement, NRC, LA, Nureg 137 Supplement 59, Comment Period Ends: 10/09/2018, Contact: Elaine Keegan 301-415-8517 EIS No. 20180190, Draft, USFS, CA, Stanislaus National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) Use Designation, Comment Period Ends: 10/09/2018, Contact: Beth Martinez 209-288-6307 EIS No. 20180191, Final, USFS, PR, El Yunque National Forest Plan Revision EIS, Review Period Ends: 10/23/2018, Contact: Pedro Rios 305-306-3805 Dated: August 21, 2018. Robert Tomiak, Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18331 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0563; FRL-9982-34] MERP Systems, Inc.; Transfer of Data AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to MERP Systems, Inc. in accordance with the CBI regulations. MERP Systems, Inc. has been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable MERP Systems, Inc. to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

    DATES:

    MERP Systems, Inc. will be given access to this information on or before August 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Northern, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6478 email address: [email protected]

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

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0563, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Contractor Requirements

    The Contractor shall perform activities in the PWS that are organized into four (4) main categories: Task Activity 1 is related to overall project management; Task Activity 2 is related to information about pesticide products, including the receipt of applications for regulatory action, the results of EPA registration decisions affecting individual products and pesticide uses and reports of incidents involving the use of pesticide products; Task Activity 3 is related to information about pesticide studies, position papers, analyses and the administrative records resulting from the decision processes themselves; and Task Activity 4 is related to updating OPP's PRISM Label Use Information System (LUIS) which is an automated pesticide information system that contains a summary of the legal uses of registered pesticide products.

    The contractor shall:

    • Capture data that supports regulatory applications, decisions, incident reports, and Personally Identifiable Information (PII), etc.;

    • Provide processing, indexing support and shredding/destruction of studies and other technical documents of archival significance; and

    • Make every effort to adopt to changing environments in technology, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Homeland Security, Presidential Directives, and EPA Management Directives, of which, changes could be in the areas of technology, regulations, information systems. process adaptations. coordination with other agencies, coordination with other Agency contractors. Government furnished equipment and/or software, facilities and security requirements, shall remain within the tasks activities herein.

    These contracts involve no subcontractors.

    OPP has determined that the contracts described in this document involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.

    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contracts with MERP Systems, Inc., prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In addition, MERP Systems, Inc. is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to MERP Systems, Inc. until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to MERP Systems, Inc. will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for these contracts. All information supplied to MERP Systems, Inc. by EPA for use in connection with these contracts will be returned to EPA when MERP Systems, Inc. has completed its work.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18405 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 11, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Shelly Maples Jambon, Grand Isle, Louisiana; to acquire voting shares of SBT Bancshares, Inc., and its subsidiary, State Bank and Trust Company, both of Golden Meadow, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 21, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18355 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 19, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Jonesboro Bancshares, Inc., Jonesboro, Louisiana; to become a bank holding company by acquiring voting shares of Jonesboro State Bank, Jonesboro, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 21, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18356 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-PBS-2018-08; Docket No. 2018-0002; Sequence No. 23] Public Building Service (PBS); Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California; Correction AGENCY:

    Public Building Service (PBS), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    GSA published a notice in the Federal Register on August 10, 2016, at 83 FR 39753, regarding the Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California. GSA is making an editorial change to the Dates, Addresses, and Public Meeting sections to correct the date of the DEIS Public Meeting; the location of the DEIS; and the comment period end date.

    DATES:

    Applicable: Friday, August 24, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Osmahn Kadri, Portfolio Management Division, Public Buildings Service, GSA at 415-522-3617. Please cite Notice-PBS-2018-06; Correction.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    In the notice FR Doc. 2018-17211 published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 39753, August 10, 2018, make the following corrections:

    On page 39753, first sentence of the paragraph under the Dates section, remove “Thursday, August 9th” and add “Wednesday, September 5,” in its place.

    On page 39753, third sentence of the paragraph under the Dates section, remove “Friday, August 31, 2018” and add Tuesday, October 9th, 2018 in its place.

    On pages 39753 and 39754, first sentence of the second paragraph under the ADDRESSES section, remove “https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-pacific-rim-region-9/land-ports-of-entry/otay-mesa-land-port-of-entry” and add “https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/regions/welcome-to-the-pacific-rim-region-9/land-ports-of-entry/otay-mesa-land-port-of-entry/otay-mesa-environmental-review” in its place.

    On page 39754, second sentence of the paragraph under the Public Meeting section, remove “August 31, 2018” and add Tuesday, October 9th, 2018 in its place.

    Dated: August 16, 2018. Matthew Jear, Director, Portfolio Management Division, Pacific Rim Region, Public Buildings Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18117 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-YF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity AGENCY:

    Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; ACF; HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comment.

    Title: Head Start Child and Family Experiences Survey (FACES) (OMB #0970-0151).

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing to collect data for a new round of the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).

    DATES:

    Comments due within 60 days of publication. In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected]. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Similar to FACES 2014-2018, in 2019, two parallel studies will commence. FACES 2019 focuses on Head Start Regions I through X (which are geographically based); AI/AN (American Indian and Alaska Native) FACES 2019 focuses on Region XI (which funds Head Start programs that serve federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes). Both studies will provide data on a set of key indicators for Head Start programs. In fall 2019 and spring 2020, FACES will assess the school readiness skills of 2,400 Head Start children in Regions I-X (FACES 2019) and 800 children in Region XI (AI/AN FACES 2019), survey their parents, and ask their Head Start teachers to rate children's social and emotional skills. This sample will be drawn from 60 programs in Regions I-X and 22 programs in Region XI. In spring 2020, classroom observations of sampled programs will occur. In Regions I-X, the number of programs will increase from the 60 that are used to collect data on children's school readiness outcomes to 180 for the purpose of conducting observations in 720 Head Start classrooms. In Region XI, the program sample will remain at 22, and approximately 80 Head Start classroom observations will take place. Program director, center director, and teacher surveys will also be conducted in spring 2020 in Regions I-XI. In spring 2022, program level data collection will be repeated in Regions I-X only. FACES 2019 also features a “Core Plus” design, with the above activities reflecting the Core data, with the potential of “Plus” studies to inform emerging programmatic questions. If any Plus studies are conducted, they will be conducted within the Core sample and will be included in a future Federal Register notice.

    Previous Federal Register notices provided the opportunity for public comment on the proposed Head Start program recruitment and center selection process (FR 82, pg. 48819 10/20/2017; FR 83, pg. 7480 02/21/2018). This notice describes the planned data collection activities for the FACES 2019 and AI/AN FACES 2019 data collection. Data collection activities include classroom and child sampling information collection, direct child assessments, parent surveys, teacher child reports, and staff surveys.

    Sampling of children and classrooms for FACES starts with site visits to 157 Head Start centers (120 for FACES 2019 and 37 for AI/AN FACES 2019) in fall 2019. Field enrollment specialists (FES) will request a list of all Head Start-funded classrooms from Head Start staffNext, for each selected classroom, the FES will request enrollment information for each child enrolled. Data collection will then start with site visits in fall 2019 to 82 Head Start programs (60 for FACES 2019 and 22 for AI/AN FACES 2019) to directly assess the school readiness skills of 3,200 children (2,400 for FACES 2019 and 800 for AI/AN FACES 2019) sampled for FACES and whose parents agree to participate. Parents of sampled children will complete surveys on the Web or by telephone about their children and family background. Head Start teachers will rate each sampled child (approximately 10 children per classroom) using the Web or paper- and pencil forms. These activities will occur a second time in spring 2020. When the FACES 2019 program sample size increases to 180 programs in the spring, the methods of data collection for this phase will feature classroom sampling and site visitors conducting observations of the quality of classrooms. Head Start program directors, center directors, and teachers will complete surveys about themselves and the services and instruction at Head Start. The purpose of the FACES data collection is to support the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start program (Pub. L. 110-134), which calls for periodic assessments of Head Start's quality and effectiveness.

    Respondents: Head Start children, parents of Head Start children, and Head Start teachers and Head Start staff.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • FACES 2019 Classroom sampling form from Head Start staff 360 120 1 0.17 20 FACES 2019 Child roster form from Head Start staff 120 40 1 0.33 13 FACES 2019 Parent consent form 2,400 800 1 0.17 136 FACES 2019 Head Start parent survey 2,400 800 2 0.42 672 FACES 2019 Head Start child assessment 2,400 800 2 0.75 1,200 FACES 2019 Head Start teacher child report 240 80 20 0.17 272 FACES 2019 Head Start teacher survey 720 240 1 0.50 120 FACES 2019 Head Start program director survey 180 60 1 0.50 30 FACES 2019 Head Start center director survey 360 120 1 0.50 60 AI/AN FACES 2019 Classroom sampling form from Head Start staff 37 13 1 0.17 2 AI/AN FACES 2019 Child roster form from Head Start staff 37 13 1 0.33 4 AI/AN FACES 2019 Parent consent form 800 267 1 0.17 45 AI/AN FACES 2019 Head Start parent survey 800 267 2 0.50 267 AI/AN FACES 2019 Head Start child assessment 800 267 2 0.75 401 AI/AN FACES 2019 Head Start teacher child report 80 27 20 0.17 92 AI/AN FACES 2019 Head Start teacher survey 80 27 1 0.58 16 AI/AN FACES 2019 Head Start program director survey 22 8 1 0.33 3 AI/AN FACES 2019 Head Start center director survey 37 13 1 0.33 4

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,357.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    (Authority: Section 640(a)(2)(D) and section 649 of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007) Emily B. Jabbour, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18333 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Sponsorship Review Procedures for Approval for Unaccompanied Alien Children.

    OMB No.: 0970-0278.

    Description: The Administration for Children (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) requests the use of emergency processing procedures in accordance with 5 CFR Section 1320.13 to expand the scope of an existing information collection under OMB control number 0970-0278, Reunification Procedures for Unaccompanied Alien Children, renamed to Sponsorship Review Procedures for Approval of Unaccompanied Alien Children. The information collection will allow ACF to conduct suitability assessments to vet potential sponsors of unaccompanied alien children in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ORR and the Department of Homeland Security. Specifically, the information collection allows ORR to obtain biometric and biographical information from sponsors, adult members of their household, and adult care givers identified in a sponsor care plan, where applicable. ORR in turn shares the information collected with other federal departments to conduct background checks. ORR intends the instruments used in this submission to be available for use by mid-May 2018.

    ACF cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures because the use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent the collection of needed information in a timely manner. Complying with the normal clearance procedures would delay or disrupt ORR's ability to expand the background checks in order to more comprehensively evaluate the suitability of potential sponsors of unaccompanied alien children, and to ensure safe and appropriate placement of children. The information collection is essential to the mission of the agency.

    Respondents: Sponsors, adult household members, parents or legal guardians of unaccompanied alien children.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Family Reunification Application 50,000 1 0.75 37,500 Authorization for Release of Information 90,000 1 0.5 45,000 Fingerprint Instructions 90,000 1 1.25 112,500 Letter of Designation 25,000 1 0.5 12,500

    Estimated Total Annual Burden per Respondent: 207,500.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert A. Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18351 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567] Notice of Decision Not To Designate Pneumocystis Pneumonia as a Tropical Disease AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency), in response to suggestions submitted to Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567, has analyzed whether Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) meets the statutory criteria for designation as a tropical disease for the purposes of obtaining a priority review voucher (PRV) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), namely whether it primarily affects poor and marginalized populations and whether there is “no significant market” for drugs that prevent or treat PCP in developed countries. The Agency has determined that PCP does not meet the statutory criteria for designation as a tropical disease and declines to designate it as such.

    DATES:

    August 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Schumann, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1300, [email protected]; or Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (OCOD), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background: Priority Review Voucher Program II. Decision Not To Designate Pneumocystis Pneumonia A. Significant Market in Developed Nations B. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations C. FDA Determination III. Process for Requesting Additional Diseases To Be Added to the List IV. Paperwork Reduction Act V. References I. Background: Priority Review Voucher Program

    Section 524 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n), which was added by section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), uses a PRV incentive to encourage the development of new drugs, including biologics, for prevention and treatment of certain diseases that, in the aggregate, affect millions of people throughout the world. Further information about the tropical disease PRV program can be found in guidance for industry “Tropical Disease Priority Review Vouchers” (81 FR 69537, October 6, 2016, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/08/20/2015-20554/designating-additions-to-the-current-list-of-tropical-diseases-in-the-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic). Additions to the statutory list of tropical diseases published in the Federal Register can be accessed at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm534162.htm.

    In August 2015, FDA published a final order (80 FR 50559, August 20, 2015) (final order) designating Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis as tropical diseases. That final order also sets forth FDA's interpretation of the statutory criteria for tropical disease designation and expands the list of tropical diseases under section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act, which authorizes the FDA to designate by order “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” as a tropical disease.

    FDA has applied its August 2015 criteria as set forth in the final order to analyze whether PCP meets the statutory criteria for addition to the tropical disease list. As discussed below, the Agency has determined that PCP does not meet the statutory criteria for designation as a “tropical disease” and thus will not add it to the list of tropical diseases whose applications may be eligible for a priority review voucher.

    II. Decision Not To Designate Pneumocystis Pneumonia

    FDA has considered all diseases submitted to the public docket (FDA-2008-N-0567) between August 20, 2015, and June 20, 2018, as potential additions to the list of tropical diseases under section 524 of the FD&C Act, under the docket review process explained on the Agency's website (see https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm534162.htm). Based on an assessment using the criteria from its final order, FDA has determined that PCP will not be designated as a “tropical disease” under section 524 of the FD&C Act.

    Pneumocystis species are genetically distinct, host-specific opportunistic fungal pathogens widely found in nature. Pneumocystis jirovecii, found in humans, causes PCP in immunocompromised patients. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with a low CD4 count are at the highest risk of PCP. Others at substantial risk include hematopoietic cell and solid organ transplant recipients, those with cancer (particularly hematologic malignancies), and those receiving glucocorticoids, chemotherapeutic agents, and other immunosuppressive medications. Among patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and PCP, the mortality rate is 10 to 20 percent during the initial infection, but the rate increases substantially when the patient requires mechanical ventilation. The mortality rate among patients with PCP in the absence of AIDS is 30 to 60 percent, depending on the population at risk, with a greater risk of death among patients with cancer than among patients undergoing transplantation or those with connective tissue disease (Ref. 1).

    A. Significant Market in Developed Nations

    In developed nations, a sizable market exists for PCP prophylaxis drugs. The prevalence of stage-3 AIDS by year end 2014 in the United States (i.e., with AIDS requiring PCP prophylaxis) was approximately 530,000 (Ref 2). In addition, approximately 30,000 solid organ transplantations (Ref. 3) and 19,000 hematopoietic stem cell transplants (Ref. 4) are performed annually in the United States. These patients receive PCP prophylaxis for 6 months to one year in the post-transplantation period. There were also about 6,590 new cases of acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) eligible for PCP prophylaxis in the United States in 2016 (Ref. 5).

    Regarding treatment of PCP, the incidence of PCP has declined substantially with widespread use of PCP prophylaxis and anti-retroviral therapy (ART) (see, e.g., Refs. 6-9). In a prospective cohort study of 8070 participants at 12 HIV clinics across the United States, the incidence in 2003-2007 was <1 case per 100 person-years (Ref. 10). PCP now mainly occurs in individuals who are unaware that they are HIV positive, lack access to medical care, or are noncompliant with medications.

    In contrast to HIV-positive patients, the incidence of PCP in non-HIV patients is rising in some areas (see, e.g., Refs. 8, 9, 11); however, the number of cases in non-HIV patients is still below the number of cases in HIV-positive patients (Ref. 12). In the United States, the incidence of PCP is estimated to be 9 percent among hospitalized HIV/AIDS patients and 1 percent among solid organ transplant recipients (Ref. 13).

    Current clinical guidelines recommend chemoprophylaxis against primary PCP for HIV infected persons with a CD4 cell count <200 cells/µL or a history of oral candidiasis (Ref. 14). As indicated above, the prevalence of stage-3 HIV infection (i.e., AIDS requiring PCP prophylaxis) by year end 2014 in the United States was approximately 530,000 patients, including 18,303 patients diagnosed with stage-3 HIV infection in 2015 (Ref. 2). These subjects were eligible for PCP prophylaxis.

    In summary, a sizable market in developed nations exists for drugs indicated for prevention of PCP. At present, FDA is unaware of any significant funding by military, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), or any other United States Government sources for drug development targeting treatment of or prophylaxis against PCP.

    B. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations

    Although no disability-adjusted life year (DALY) data were found to distinguish the disease burden of PCP in developing versus developed countries, it is noted that PCP occurs frequently among HIV-infected patients in many parts of the developing world. In addition, the prevalence of HIV-infected persons with PCP ranges from 24 percent (42/177) in Mexico (Ref. 15) to 55 percent in Thailand (Ref. 16). A Brazilian study found 55 percent (15/27) of HIV-infected persons with respiratory symptoms had PCP (Ref. 17).

    Studies estimating the burden of fungal infections in different countries suggest low total yearly number of PCP cases in Belgium (n = 120), in contrast, for example, to 9,600 cases among HIV-infected people in Tanzania in 2012 (Refs. 18 and 19). In Uganda, the frequency of PCP among HIV-infected patients hospitalized with suspected pneumonia who had negative sputum acid-fast bacilli smears and underwent bronchoscopy decreased from nearly 40 percent of bronchoscopies between 1999 and 2000 to less than ten percent between 2007 and 2008 (Ref. 20). However, it is estimated that there are approximately 800 HIV-positive adults with PCP annually and up to 42,000 children with PCP annually in Uganda (Ref. 21). In Vietnam, the prevalence of PCP was 608 cases in 2012, 1149 cases per year in Senegal and 990 cases yearly in Nepal (HIV positive individuals) (Refs. 22, 23, 24). In Ukraine, 13.5 per 100,000 individuals develop PCP annually (Ref. 25).

    High rates of anti-Pneumocystis antibodies among African children suggest that exposure to the organism is common, and that Pneumocystis jirovecii is a common cause of pneumonia among children in sub-Saharan Africa (Ref. 26). Furthermore, limited diagnostic resources and less commonly performed induced sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage with reliance on empiric therapy may cause underestimation of the true incidence of PCP (Ref. 27). Several studies suggest that the incidence of PCP is increasing in Africa (Refs. 26, 28, 29).

    PCP has been reported to be a leading cause of death in HIV-infected infants, responsible for at least one quarter of all pneumonia deaths in HIV-infected infants (Ref. 30). A recent review found PCP to be one of the factors strongly associated with mortality from acute lower respiratory infections in children under five years of age in low-income economies, lower-middle-income economies, and upper-middle-income economies (referred to as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)), with odds ratio of 95 percent confidence interval of 4.79, 2.67-8.61 (Ref. 31). However, the incidence of PCP in infants and children in developed countries has decreased because PCP prophylaxis has been initiated in all neonates born to HIV-positive mothers (Refs. 32 and 33).

    The HIV epidemic imposes a particular burden on women and children, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa where women account for approximately 57 percent of all people living with HIV (Ref. 34). In 2012, there were an estimated 260,000 newly infected children in LMICs (id.). Children with HIV are more likely to face gaps in access to HIV treatment. In 2012, approximately 34 percent of children had access to HIV treatment versus approximately 64 percent for adults (id.). Since PCP is the most prevalent in persons infected with HIV (Ref. 1) and HIV disproportionately impacts women and children, it is reasonable to conclude that PCP also disproportionately affects these populations.

    PCP has not been designated by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a neglected tropical disease (Ref. 35).

    C. FDA Determination

    In sum, although PCP disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations, it is an infectious disease for which there is a significant market in developed nations for drugs indicated for prevention of PCP. Based on the information reviewed, FDA has determined that PCP does not meet the statutory criteria for a tropical disease in section 524 of the FD&C Act.

    III. Process for Requesting Additional Diseases To Be Added to the List

    FDA's current determination regarding PCP does not preclude interested persons from requesting its consideration in the future. To facilitate the consideration of future additions to the list, FDA established a public docket (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567) through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list. Such requests should be accompanied by information to document that the disease meets the criteria set forth in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. FDA will periodically review these requests, and, when appropriate, expand the list. For further information, see https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm534162.htm.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This notice reiterates the “open” status of the previously established public docket through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. Such a request for information is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Specifically, “[f]acts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof” are exempt, “provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the Agency's full consideration of the comment.”

    V. References

    The following references have been placed on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES). They may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday and are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified the website addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the websites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    1. Thomas, C.F., Jr. and A.H. Limper, “Pneumocystis Pneumonia,” The New England Journal of Medicine, 350(24):2487-2498, June 10, 2004. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “HIV Surveillance Report, 2015,” vol. 27, November 2016, available at https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html, accessed January 19, 2017. 3. United Network for Organ Sharing, “Annual Reports,” accessed December 16, 2016, available at https://www.unos.org/about/annual-report/. 4. The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, “Transplant Activity Report: Total Transplants by Year,” accessed January 19, 2017, available at https://bloodcell.transplant.hrsa.gov/research/transplant_data/transplant_activity_report/index.html. 5. The American Cancer Society, “Key Statistics for Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia,” accessed January 19, 2017, available at http://www.cancer.org/cancer/leukemia-acutelymphocyticallinadults/detailedguide/leukemia-acute-lymphocytic-key-statistics. 6. Miller, R.F., L. Huang, and P.D. Walzer, “Pneumocystis Pneumonia Associated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus,” Clinics in Chest Medicine, 34(2):229-241, June 2013. 7. Morris, A., J.D. Lundgren, H. Masur, et al., “Current Epidemiology of Pneumocystis Pneumonia,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(10):1713-720, October 2004. 8. Azoulay, E., A. Bergeron, S. Chevret, N. Bele, et al., “Polymerase Chain Reaction for Diagnosing Pneumocystis Pneumonia in Non-HIV Immunocompromised Patients with Pulmonary Infiltrates,” Chest, 135(3):655-661, March 2009. 9. Gamaletsou, M.N., M. Drogari-Apiranthitou, D.W. Denning, et al., “An Estimate of the Burden of Serious Fungal Diseases in Greece,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology), 35(7):1115-1120, July 2016. 10. Buchacz, K., R.K. Baker, F.J. Palella, Jr., et al., “AIDS-Defining Opportunistic Illnesses in US patients, 1994-2007: A Cohort Study,” AIDS, 24(10):1549-1559, Jun 19, 2010. 11. Maini, R., K.L. Henderson, E.A. Sheridan, et al., “Increasing Pneumocystis Pneumonia, England, UK, 2000-2010,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19(3):386-392, March 2013. 12. Walzer, P.D. and A.G. Smulian, “Pneumocystis species,” in: Mandell, G.L., Bennett, J.E., Dolin, R., eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Disease, 7th ed. PA: Elsevier; 2010, 3377-90. 13. CDC, Fungal Diseases, “Pneumocystis Pneumonia,” February 21, 2018, available at https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/pneumocystis-pneumonia, accessed November 21, 2016. 14. Kaplan, J.E., H. Masur, K.K. Holmes, et al., “USPHS/IDSA Guidelines for the Prevention of Opportunistic Infections in Persons Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Summary,” USPHS/IDSA Prevention of Opportunistic Infections Working Group, Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 21(Suppl 1):S12-31, August 1995. 15. Mohar, A., J. Romo, F. Salido, et al., “The Spectrum of Clinical and Pathological Manifestations of AIDS in a Consecutive Series of Autopsied Patients in Mexico,” AIDS, 6(5):467-473, May 1992. 16. Wannamethee, S.G., S. Sirivichayakul, A. N. Phillips, et al., “Clinical and Immunological Features of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in Patients from Bangkok, Thailand,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 27(2):289-295, April 1998. 17. Weinberg, A. and M.I. Duarte, “Respiratory Complications in Brazilian Patients Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus,” Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, 35(2):129-139, March-April 1993. 18. Lagrou, K., J. Maertens, E. Van Even, et al., “Burden of Serious Fungal Infections in Belgium,” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5):1-5, October 2015. 19. Faini, D., W. Maokola, W., H. Furrer, et al., “Burden of Serious Fungal Infections in Tanzania,” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5):70-79, October 2015. 20. Worodria, W., J.L. Davis, A. Cattamanchi, et al., “Bronchoscopy is Useful for Diagnosing Smear-Negative Tuberculosis in HIV-Infected Patients,” The European Respiratory Journal, 36(2):446-448, August 2010. 21. Parkes‐Ratanshi, R., B. Achan, R. Kwizera, et al., “Cryptococcal Disease and the Burden of Other Fungal Diseases in Uganda; Where are the Knowledge Gaps and How Can We Fill Them?” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5):85-93, October 2015. 22. Beardsley, J., D.W. Denning, N.V. Chau, et al., “Estimating the Burden of Fungal Disease in Vietnam,” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5):101-106, October 2015. 23. Badiane, A.S., D. Ndiaye, D.W. Denning, “Burden of Fungal Infections in Senegal,” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5):63-69, October 2015. 24. Khwakhali, U.S. and D.W. Denning, “Burden of Serious Fungal Infections in Nepal,” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5):45-50, October 2015. 25. Osmanov, A. and D.W. Denning, “Burden of Serious Fungal Infections in Ukraine,” Mycoses, 58(Suppl 5): 94-100, October 2015. 26. Morrow, B.M., N.Y. Hsaio, M. Zampoli, et al., “Pneumocystis Pneumonia in South African Children with and Without Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy,” The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 29(6):535-539, June 2010. 27. Stansell, J.D., D.H. Osmond, E. Charlebois, E., et al., “Predictors of Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia in HIV-Infected Persons. Pulmonary Complications of HIV Infection Study Group,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 155(1):60-66, January 1997. 28. Wasserman, S., M.E. Engel, M. Mendelson, “Burden of Pneumocystis Pneumonia in HIV-Infected Adults in Sub-Saharan Africa: Protocol for a Systematic Review,” Systematic Reviews, 2:112, December 12, 2013. 29. Fisk, D.T., S. Meshnick, S., and P.H. Kazanjian, “Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia in Patients in the Developing World Who Have Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome,” Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 36(1):70-78, January 1, 2003. 30. de Boer, M.G., J.W. de Fijter, F.P. Kroon, “Outbreaks and Clustering of Pneumocystis Pneumonia in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review,” Medical Mycology, 49(7):673-680, October 2011. 31. Sonego, M., M.C. Pellegrin, G. Becker, et al., “Risk Factors for Mortality from Acute Lower Respiratory Infections (ALRI) in Children under Five Years of Age in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies,” PLOS One, 10(1):e0116380, 2015. 32. Morris, A., J.D. Lundgren, H. Masur, et al., “Current Epidemiology of Pneumocystis Pneumonia,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(10):1713-1720, October 2004. 33. Avino, L.J., S.M. Naylor, A.M. Roecker, “Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in the Non-HIV-Infected Population,” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 50(8):673-679, August 2016. 34. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), “Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2013,” accessed December 9, 2016, available at http://files.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/epidemiology/2013/gr2013/UNAIDS_Global_Report_2013_en.pdf. 35. WHO, “Neglected Tropical Diseases,” accessed December 9, 2016, available at http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/diseases/en/. Dated: August 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18313 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2018-P-0964 and FDA-2018-P-0967] Determination That PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 milligrams (mg)/100 milliliters (mL); dextrose, 5 grams (g)/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to these products as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather A. Dorsey, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6219, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

    PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) is the subject of NDA 017390, held by Baxter Healthcare Corp., and initially approved on February 1, 1979. PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) is the subject of NDA 017451, held by Baxter Healthcare Corp., and initially approved on February 2, 1979. PLASMA LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% is indicated as a source of water, electrolytes, and calories or as an alkalinizing agent. PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% is indicated as a source of water, electrolytes, and calories, or as an alkalinizing agent.

    PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. In the Federal Register of October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61426), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDAs 017390 and 017451, effective November 12, 2015.

    Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, submitted two citizen petitions dated March 2, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-0964), and March 5, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-0967), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    After considering the citizen petitions and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that these drug products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that these drug products were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list PLASMA-LYTE M AND DEXTROSE 5% (calcium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 119 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 161 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 94 mg/100 mL; sodium lactate, 138 mg/100 mL) and PLASMA LYTE 148 AND DEXTROSE 5% (dextrose, 5 g/100 mL; magnesium chloride, 30 mg/100 mL; potassium chloride, 37 mg/100 mL; sodium acetate, 368 mg/100 mL; sodium chloride, 526 mg/100 mL; sodium gluconate, 502 mg/100 mL) in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to these drug products may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18311 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0101] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397 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, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to the Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3397, that must be submitted along with certain drug and biological product applications.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 23, 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 23, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of October 23, 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-2005-N-0101 for “Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397.” 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, 10A-12M, 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, including each proposed extension of an existing 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 comment 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.

    Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3397 OMB Control Number 0910-0297—Extension

    Under the prescription drug user fee provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (sections 735 and 736 (21 U.S.C. 379g and 379h)), as amended, FDA has the authority to assess and collect user fees for certain drug and biologics license applications (BLAs). Under this authority, pharmaceutical companies pay a fee for certain new human drug applications (NDAs) and BLAs submitted to the Agency for review. Because the submission of prescription drug user fees concurrently with applications is required, review of an application by FDA cannot begin until the fee is submitted. The Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3397, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for review of an application, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to account for and track user fees. The form provides a cross-reference of the fee submitted for an application by using a unique number tracking system. The information collected is used by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to initiate the administrative screening of NDAs and BLAs.

    Respondents to this collection of information are drug and biologics manufacturers that submit NDAs and BLAs. Based on FDA's database system for fiscal year (FY) 2017, there are an estimated 155 manufacturers of products subject to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L. 105-115), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-52.)

    The total number of annual responses is based on the number of application submissions received by FDA in FY 2017. CDER received 250 annual responses that included the following submissions: 218 NDAs and 32 BLAs. CBER received 12 BLAs. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 FDA form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per response Total hours
    3397 155 1.6903 262 0.5 (30 minutes) 131 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 1,724 hours and a corresponding decrease of 3,448 responses. We attribute this program change to the restructuring of the Prescription Drug Use Fee Program fees. The FD&C Act, as amended by the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (PDUFA VI), authorizes FDA to collect application fees for certain applications for the review of human drug and biological products and discontinued the supplement fee. This resulted in the removal of supplements from the Prescription Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, therefore reducing the burden for this collection of information.

    Dated: August 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18307 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3092] Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry regarding the use of placebos and blinding in randomized controlled clinical trials in development programs for drug or biological products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and oncologic diseases regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 23, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3092 for Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development. Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Beaver, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2100, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0489; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hematologic Malignancy and Oncologic Disease: Considerations for Use of Placebos and Blinding in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for Drug Product Development.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to industry regarding the use of placebos and blinding in randomized controlled clinical trials in development programs for drug or biological products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and oncologic diseases regulated by CDER and CBER.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the use of placebos and blinding in randomized controlled clinical trials for drug product development for hematologic malignancy and oncologic disease. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR part 312 (Investigational New Drug Application) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 (Protection of Human Subjects: Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18339 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3030] Site Visit Training Program for Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Staff; Information Available to Industry AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the Fiscal Year 2019 CDER Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) Staff Experiential Learning Site Visit Program. The purpose of this document is to invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this program to submit a site visit proposal to CDER's OPQ.

    DATES:

    Submit either an electronic or written proposal to participate in this program by November 23, 2018. See section IV of this document for information on what to include in such proposals.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janet Wilson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4642, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-3969, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    A critical part of the commitment by CDER to make safe and effective high-quality drugs available to the American public is gaining an understanding of all aspects of a drug's development and commercial life cycle, including the variety of drug manufacturing operations. To support this commitment, CDER has initiated various training and development programs including the FY2019 Experiential Learning Site Visit program. This site visit program is designed to offer experiential and firsthand learning opportunities that will provide OPQ staff with a better understanding of the pharmaceutical industry and its operations, as well as the challenges that impact a drug's developmental program and commercial life cycle. The goal of these visits is to enhance OPQ staff exposure to the drug development and manufacturing processes in industry; therefore, a tour of pharmaceutical company facilities, including manufacturing and laboratory operations, is an integral part of the experience.

    II. The Site Visit Program

    In this site visit program, groups on average of 15 to 20 OPQ staff—who have experience in a variety of backgrounds, including science, medicine, statistics, manufacturing, engineering, testing, and project management—will observe operations of commercial manufacturing, pilot plants (if applicable), and testing over a 1- to 2-day period. To facilitate the learning process for OPQ staff, overview presentations by industry related to drug development, manufacturing and testing may be included.

    OPQ encourages companies engaging in the development and manufacturing of both active pharmaceutical ingredients (small and large molecules) and drug products to respond. Please note that this site visit program is not intended to supplement or replace a regulatory inspection, e.g., a preapproval inspection, prelicense inspection, or a surveillance inspection.

    OPQ staff participating in this program will benefit by gaining a better understanding of current industry practices, processes, and procedures. Participating sites will have an opportunity to showcase their technologies and their actual manufacturing and testing facilities.

    Although observation of all aspects of drug development and production would be beneficial to OPQ staff, OPQ has identified a number of areas of particular interest to its staff. The following list identifies some examples of these areas but is not intended to be exhaustive, mutually exclusive, or to limit industry response:

    • Drug products ○ Solutions, suspensions, emulsions, and semisolids ○ Modified- and immediate-release formulations ○ Drug-device combination products (e.g., inhalation products, transdermal systems, implants intended for drug delivery, and prefilled syringes) • Active pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured by ○ Chemical synthesis ○ Fermentation ○ Biotechnology • Design, development, manufacturing and controls ○ Engineering controls for aseptic processes ○ Novel delivery technologies ○ Hot melt extrusion ○ Soft-gel encapsulation ○ Lyophilization ○ Blow-Fill-Seal and isolators ○ Spray-drying ○ Process analytical technology, measurement systems, and real-time release testing • Emerging technologies ○ Continuous manufacturing ○ 3-dimensional printing ○ Nanotechnology III. Site Selection

    Selection of potential facilities will be based on the priorities developed for OPQ staff training, the facility's current compliance status with FDA, and in consultation with the appropriate FDA district office. All travel expenses associated with this program will be the responsibility of OPQ; therefore, selection will be based on the availability of funds and resources for the fiscal year. OPQ will not provide financial compensation to the pharmaceutical site as part of this program.

    IV. Proposals for Participation

    Companies interested in offering a site visit or learning more about this site visit program should respond by submitting a proposal directly to Janet Wilson (see DATES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this document for more information). To aid in OPQ's site selection and planning, your proposal should include the information below:

    • A contact person,

    • Site visit location(s),

    • Facility Establishment Identifier and Data Universal Numbering System numbers, as applicable,

    • Maximum number of FDA staff that can be accommodated during a site visit (maximum of 20),

    • A proposed agenda outlining the learning objectives and associated activities for the site visit,

    • Maximum number of site visits (no more than 2) that your site would be willing to host by the close of the government fiscal year, September 30, 2019, and

    • Proposed dates for each site visit (i.e. month and week).

    Please note that the requested proposed agenda will be reviewed to determine the educational benefit to OPQ in conducting the visit, and selected sites may be asked to refine the agenda to maximize the educational benefit. After a site is selected, OPQ will communicate with the contact person for the site to determine the actual dates for the visit.

    Proposals submitted without this minimum information will not be considered. Based on response rate and type of responses, OPQ may or may not consider alternative pathways to meeting our training goals.

    Dated: August 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-18305 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567] Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) to award priority review vouchers (PRVs) to tropical disease product applicants when the applications meet certain criteria. The FD&C Act lists the diseases that are considered tropical diseases for purposes of obtaining PRVs and provides for Agency expansion of that list to include other diseases that satisfy the definition of “tropical diseases” as set forth in the FD&C Act. The Agency has determined that chikungunya virus disease, Lassa fever, rabies, and cryptococcal meningitis satisfy this definition and is therefore adding them to the list of designated tropical diseases whose product applications may result in the award of PRVs. Sponsors submitting certain drug or biological product applications for the prevention or treatment of chikungunya virus disease, Lassa fever, rabies, and cryptococcal meningitis may be eligible to receive a PRV if such applications are approved by FDA.

    DATES:

    This order is effective August 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Schumann, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1300, [email protected]; or Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (OCOD), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background: Priority Review Voucher Program II. Diseases Being Designated A. Chikungunya Virus Disease B. Lassa Fever C. Rabies D. Cryptococcal Meningitis III. Process for Requesting Additional Diseases To Be Added to the List IV. Paperwork Reduction Act V. References I. Background: Priority Review Voucher Program

    Section 524 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n), which was added by section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, uses a PRV incentive to encourage the development of new drugs for prevention and treatment of certain diseases that, in the aggregate, affect millions of people throughout the world. Further information about the tropical disease PRV program can be found in guidance for industry “Tropical Disease Priority Review Vouchers” (81 FR 69537, October 6, 2016, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/08/20/2015-20554/designating-additions-to-the-current-list-of-tropical-diseases-in-the-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic). Additions to the statutory list of tropical diseases published in the Federal Register can be accessed at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm534162.htm.

    On August 20, 2015, FDA published a final order (80 FR 50559) (final order) designating Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis as tropical diseases. That final order also sets forth FDA's interpretation of the statutory criteria for tropical disease designation and expands the list of tropical diseases under section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act, which authorizes FDA to designate by order “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” as a tropical disease.

    In this document, FDA has applied its August 2015 criteria as set forth in the final order to analyze whether Chikungunya virus disease, Lassa fever, rabies, and cryptococcal meningitis meet the statutory criteria for addition to the tropical disease list.

    II. Diseases Being Designated

    FDA has considered all diseases submitted to the public docket (FDA-2008-N-0567) between August 20, 2015, and June 20, 2018, as potential additions to the list of tropical diseases under section 524 of the FD&C Act, pursuant to the docket review process explained on the Agency's website (see https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm534162.htm). Based on an assessment using the criteria from its August 20, 2015, final order, FDA has determined that the following additional diseases will be designated as “tropical diseases” under section 524 of the FD&C Act:

    • Chikungunya virus disease • Lassa fever • Rabies • Cryptococcal meningitis

    FDA's rationale for adding these diseases to the list is discussed in the analyses that follow.

    A. Chikungunya Virus Disease

    Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is an arbovirus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes in tropical climates in Africa, Asia, islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Europe, and, since 2013, the Americas (Ref. 1). Although CHIKV mortality is relatively low (0.01 to 0.1 percent), attack rates are very high (33 to 66 percent) and most infections are symptomatic (Refs. 2 and 3). Many infected individuals experience painful arthralgia, which can persist for months and even years (Ref. 4). Life-threatening manifestations of CHIKV, including organ failure, meningoencephalitis, hemorrhagic symptoms, and myocardial disease, and death occur in neonates, the elderly, and individuals with chronic comorbidities (Ref. 3).

    There is no approved antiviral treatment for CHIKV in the United States or anywhere else in the world (Refs. 5 and 6). Therapeutic management largely aims to relieve pain and inflammation and limit the loss of mobility and physical fitness through the use of analgesic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. There is no approved CHIKV vaccine (Ref. 6).

    1. No Significant Market in Developed Nations

    CHIKV disease occurs rarely in developed nations (Ref. 1). Outbreaks of CHIKV primarily occur in poor tropical regions where uncontrolled breeding of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes occurs in close proximity to humans due to inadequate sanitation and poor living conditions (Ref. 7). For example, in 2015, more than 700,000 suspected or confirmed cases of CHIKV were reported in the Americas; however, only 1,185 of those cases occurred in the United States (excluding territories) and Canada, all of which were imported (Refs. 8 and 9). The U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands reported 202 cases, all of which were transmitted locally (Ref. 8). There were no locally transmitted cases of CHIKV reported in Europe, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand in 2015 (Ref. 10). Even among U.S. military and military dependents, who are sometimes deployed to outbreak areas, CHIKV infection is rare; there were only 121 CHIKV cases among U.S. Department of Defense healthcare beneficiaries between January 2014 and February 2015 (Ref. 11).

    Based on the epidemiology of reported CHIKV cases, the market for vaccines in developed nations such as the United States would largely comprise travelers at risk of CHIKV infection and military populations. These markets are unlikely to provide sufficient incentive to encourage development of products to treat or prevent CHIKV infection. Although a limited number of locally transmitted cases have recently been reported in U.S. territories, the disease is not currently considered endemic in those areas. Whether those populations could broaden the market for products to treat or prevent CHIKV infection in the future is unknown. CHIKV drug development is not significantly funded by U.S. Government sources, and CHIKV is not among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) list of potential bioterrorism agents.

    2. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations

    Poor populations in tropical environments experience the primary burden of CHIKV disease because they are disproportionally exposed to its mosquito vectors (Ref. 7). Arboviral diseases disproportionally affect low-income urban and rural populations through increased mosquito exposure due to poor housing, lack of sanitation infrastructure, and outdoor occupations such as animal husbandry (Refs. 7 and 12). Large-scale and systematic insecticide mosquito control programs, once considered a public health priority throughout the world due to yellow fever virus, were largely dismantled due to diminishing resources and are therefore not available in most developing nations (Ref. 13).

    Although CHIKV infection is rarely fatal, CHIKV sequelae have a major impact on productivity and economics in developing nations (Ref. 7). CHIKV outbreaks are often explosively large, with high attack rates and high rates of symptomatic disease (Refs. 1 and 3). An outbreak in India in 2006 involved more than 1.3 million suspected cases and was associated with more than 25,000 Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost (Ref. 14). A meta-analysis of 38 published studies confined to cases occurring in 2005 estimated that CHIKV led to up to 1 million years of healthy life lost and 1.5 million DALYs lost (Ref. 15).

    Neonates are particularly vulnerable to serious complications of CHIKV infection. Among neonates born 1 day before or within 5 days following the onset of their infected mothers' symptoms, 50 percent are born with CHIKV infection (Ref. 3). Neonates are also highly vulnerable to direct inoculation of CHIKV through mosquito bites. Infected neonates present with fever, breastfeeding difficulties, thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, and moderate hepatic cytolysis. One in four develops one or more serious complications, such as encephalopathy with progressive cerebral edema, sepsis, coagulopathy with hemorrhage, and cardiomyopathy (Ref. 3).

    The elderly and individuals with chronic comorbid conditions are also susceptible to life-threatening CHIKV disease (Refs. 3 and 16). A case series of 65 patients admitted to intensive care units with confirmed CHIKV in Martinique and Guadeloupe found that most patients were older than 50, and 83 percent of patients had preexisting comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease (Ref. 16). Upon admission, 57 percent required mechanical ventilation, 46 percent had shock requiring vasoactive drugs, 31 percent required renal replacement therapy, and 27 percent died (Ref. 16).

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has designated Chikungunya as a Neglected Tropical Disease (Ref. 17).

    Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that CHIKV disease meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating CHIKV disease as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.

    B. Lassa Fever

    Lassa fever (LF) is an acute viral infection caused by Lassa virus, a single-stranded ribonucleic acid virus belonging to the arenavirus family. LF is endemic in parts of West Africa (Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria), but probably exists in other West African countries where the animal vector for Lassa virus is distributed. Most Lassa virus infections (~80 percent) are mild or asymptomatic. In the remaining 20 percent of Lassa virus infections, the disease may progress to more severe symptoms that include respiratory distress, bleeding, shock, multiorgan system failure, and death. Involvement of the central nervous system may also occur with tremors, encephalitis, or hearing loss (Ref. 18).

    The overall mortality rate of all Lassa virus infections is approximately 1 percent. However, the mortality rate in hospitalized patients is about 15 to 20 percent (Ref. 19). The most common complication of Lassa virus infection is sensorineural hearing loss. About one-third of hospitalized patients develop hearing loss; in most of these patients, hearing loss is permanent. Sensorineural hearing loss may also occur in patients with mild or asymptomatic disease (Ref. 20).

    Currently, there are no FDA-approved drugs for prophylaxis or treatment of LF. In the absence of vaccine that protects against LF, disease prevention relies on good community hygiene to avert rodents from entering homes.

    1. No Significant Market in Developed Nations

    LF does not occur in developed countries, except for a few imported cases. Characteristically, since 1969, only six cases of LF have been documented in travelers returning to the United States (not including convalescent patients) (Ref. 21). Thus, LF appears to meet the criteria of not having a significant direct market in developed countries.

    FDA is also unaware of evidence of a significant indirect market for LF products. Lassa virus, like other hemorrhagic viruses, has been categorized as a Category A pathogen by CDC (Refs. 22 to 24). Category A pathogens are considered a threat to public health and are viewed as potential biological weapons threat agents. Therefore, if a drug against a Category A pathogen is developed, it could have an indirect market if stockpiled as a medical countermeasure for the U.S. Government. At present, however, FDA is unaware of any significant funding by the military, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or any other U.S. Government sources for drug development targeting treatment or prophylaxis against LF. Further, Lassa virus is not listed as a high-priority threat in the 2017 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Strategy and Implementation Plan (Ref. 25).

    2. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations

    LF is exclusively endemic in some West African countries. LF cases identified in areas where LF is not endemic have occurred rarely and are usually imported by persons returning from West Africa. Every year, Lassa virus is estimated to cause 100,000 to 300,000 infections in West Africa, with approximately 5,000 deaths (Refs. 19 and 21). All countries where LF is known to be endemic (Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria) are classified by the World Bank as either low income (gross national income per capita of $1,045 or less) or lower-middle income (gross national income per capita of $1,046-$4,125). Further, the incidence of LF in endemic countries is much higher among the poorest rural populations (Ref. 26). The characteristics of the disease (high morbidity and mortality) indicate a potentially significant DALY impact, although a comprehensive literature search failed to identify any DALY data.

    LF causes serious disease and death in both sexes and in all age groups, including children. The mortality rate is much higher for women in their third trimester of pregnancy. Spontaneous abortion is also a serious complication of Lassa virus infection, with a 95 percent mortality in fetuses of pregnant women (Refs. 21 and 26).

    LF has not been designated by WHO as a neglected tropical disease. However, a panel of scientists and public health experts convened by WHO met in Geneva on December 8 and 9, 2015, to prioritize the top 5 to 10 emerging pathogens likely to cause severe outbreaks in the near future and for which few or no medical countermeasures exist. LF was one out of the nine diseases included in the initial list that need research and development preparedness to help control future outbreaks (Refs. 26 and 27).

    Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that LF meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating Lassa fever as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.

    C. Rabies

    Human rabies infection is caused by the rabies virus, which typically enters the body through animal bite wounds or by direct contact of the virus with the body's mucosal or respiratory surfaces. Virtually all patients with human rabies infection ultimately progress to coma followed by death, although rare recoveries have been reported (Ref. 28).

    As rabies is almost always fatal, post-exposure prophylaxis is recommended after suspected or proven exposure to rabies virus. Post-exposure rabies prophylaxis (PEP) should include wound cleansing, infiltration of rabies immunoglobulin into and around the wound, and vaccination with cell culture rabies vaccines (Ref. 29). Pre-exposure prophylaxis, consisting of administration of a rabies vaccine course, is recommended for anyone who is at continual, frequent, or increased risk for exposure to the rabies virus (Ref. 30). Rabies vaccines licensed for human use in the United States include human diploid cell vaccine (IMOVAX) and purified chick embryo cell vaccine (RabAvert). WHO has recommended discontinuation of nerve tissue vaccines, which are associated with more severe adverse reactions and are less immunogenic than cell-culture and embryonated egg-based rabies vaccines, since 1984; however, these vaccines remain in use in some developing nations (Ref. 31). Two rabies immunoglobulin products are licensed in the United States: IMOGAM and HyperRab. There are no approved treatments for symptomatic human rabies infection.

    1. No Significant Market in Developed Nations

    In developed nations, wild animals (e.g., raccoons, bats, skunks, foxes), rather than domesticated animals, account for the vast majority of reported rabies cases. Successful rabies vaccination programs have eliminated canine rabies in developed nations (including the United States), except for cases contracted while living in or travelling to rabies-endemic areas (Ref. 31). WHO categorizes Europe and North America as low-risk areas for humans contracting rabies (Ref. 32). Specific rabies prevalence information in the U.S. animal population was not identified in review of CDC rabies surveillance data; however, in 2014, a total of 6,033 animals were reported to be rabid in the United States, over 90 percent occurring in wild animals (Ref. 33).

    Using pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis can prevent human rabies infection. Christian, et al. reported an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 vaccine doses used annually in the United States for pre-exposure vaccination of critical personnel engaged in occupational activities with a risk for rabies exposure, and a separate survey estimated 6,600 vaccine doses required each year to vaccinate approximately 2,200 veterinary students (Ref. 34).

    The United States does not have a national reporting system for use of rabies PEP; therefore, the accurate usage information is unknown. The CDC states an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 PEP treatments are administered annually in the United States, yielding an incidence of 0.01 to 0.02 percent using 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate data (Refs. 35 and 36). Christian, et al. reported that between 2006 and 2008, the annual U.S. national average PEP use was estimated at 23,415 courses (range: 10,645-35,845), with an average annual rate of PEP administration for 16 states and NYC of 8.46/100,000 persons (range: 1.14-18.89/100,000 persons) (Ref. 34). The available data regarding pre-exposure and post-exposure rabies prophylaxis in the United States suggests that the population for whom rabies vaccines and human rabies immunoglobulin products are used is below 0.1 percent of the population, supporting the conclusion that there is no significant market for preventing human rabies infection in developed nations.

    Between 2006 and 2011, there were 12 human rabies cases reported in Europe, of which 6 were imported (Refs. 37 and 38). In the United States and Puerto Rico, 37 persons have been diagnosed with human rabies since 2003, including 11 cases (30 percent) with exposure occurring outside of the United States and its territories and 5 cases (14 percent) acquired from organ or tissue transplantation (Ref. 33). Although a specific prevalence is not reported, the rarity of human rabies infection in the United States is well below 0.1 percent of the population. A direct market for products to treat symptomatic rabies would therefore be small.

    The Joint Regulation on Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases Army Regulation 40-562 provides general guidance on rabies prevention recommendations for military personnel (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) (Ref. 39). Nevertheless, FDA is unaware of evidence suggesting any sizable government or other indirect market for rabies virus products.

    2. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations

    Although rabies is present in all continents except Antarctica, more than 95 percent of human deaths occur in Asia and Africa. WHO has designated rabies virus as a Neglected Tropical Disease (Ref. 17). It considers rabies a neglected disease of poor and vulnerable populations and reports the majority of deaths (84 percent) occur in rural areas (Ref. 31). In contrast to rabies epidemiology in developed nations, domestic dogs account for 99 percent of human rabies cases globally. Children in particular are at risk for human rabies infection: 40 percent of people bitten by suspected rabid animals are less than 15 years of age (Ref. 40).

    Human rabies infection is a preventable disease, and the overwhelming majority of rabies deaths result from the lack of recommended PEP administration following suspected rabies exposure (Ref. 39). The annual number of human rabies deaths worldwide estimated in 2010 ranged from 26,400 (95 percent confidence interval 15,200-45,200) to 61,000 (95 percent CI 37,000-86,000) using different statistical approaches (Ref. 31). Using these data, DALYs for human rabies are estimated at 1.9 million (95 percent CI, 1.3-2.6 million) (id.). In developing countries, licensed purified cell culture and embryonated egg-based rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin for rabies PEP are neither readily available (due to shortages) nor accessible (distance to medical centers, affordability) (Refs. 39 and 40). The average cost of rabies PEP is reported to be US $40 in Africa and US $49 in Asia, which greatly exceeds the average daily income estimated at US $1-$2 per person (Ref. 40).

    Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that rabies meets both the statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating rabies as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.

    D. Cryptococcal Meningitis

    Cryptococcus species are encapsulated fungi found in the environment throughout the world. The two most prominent species that cause human disease are C. neoformans and C. gattii (Ref. 41). The majority of cryptococcal meningitis (CM) is caused by C. neoformans infection in immunocompromised individuals. The incidence of CM increased substantially with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic in the late 20th century and remains high in developing countries that lack access to effective antiretroviral therapy (Ref. 42).

    Cryptococcal infection typically occurs by inhalation of the fungi into the lungs. In immunocompromised individuals, the resulting pulmonary infection frequently spreads to the central nervous system, causing meningitis (Ref. 43). The primary recommended treatment of CM in developed countries includes a 2-week induction phase with amphotericin B and oral flucytosine, followed by long-term maintenance therapy with oral fluconazole (Ref. 44). In resource-limited nations, oral fluconazole is often the only therapeutic option available. Poor access to care and limited availability of standard antifungal therapy for patients with CM result in significantly higher mortality and treatment failure rates in developing countries (Ref. 45). Park, et al. (2009) estimated that, excluding HIV/AIDS, CM is the fourth leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, causing more deaths than tuberculosis (Ref. 46).

    1. No Significant Market in Developed Nations

    Immunocompromised patients are typically the most vulnerable population to develop serious manifestations from infection with Cryptococcus, and the prevalence of CM is closely linked to the prevalence of untreated and poorly managed HIV/AIDS. There has been a reduction in the incidence of CM in the United States and other developed nations due to the availability of antiretroviral therapy and lower rates of individuals with advanced HIV/AIDS (Ref. 42). Per the CDC, national estimates of the incidence of cryptococcosis are difficult to establish because it is only reportable in a few states (id.). In 2000, a population-based surveillance study in two U.S. metropolitan areas estimated that the annual incidence of cryptococcosis among persons with AIDS was between 2 and 7 cases per 1,000, and the overall incidence was 0.4 to 1.3 cases per 100,000 (Ref. 47). As of 2009, Pyrgos, et al. estimated that approximately 3,400 annual hospitalizations were associated with CM in the United States (Ref. 48). Given that the overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with CM in the United States will initiate therapy in the hospital, FDA considers 3,400 annually a rough estimate of the number of cases of CM in the United States. Based on the CDC treatment guidelines for CM, FDA estimates that most CM patients will receive at least 1 year of therapy. Therefore, even if the proportion of CM patients on therapy at any given time is 50 times the annual incidence of CM, the prevalence of CM in the United States remains below 0.1 percent of the population.

    Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cryptococcal disease do not routinely recommend primary antifungal prophylaxis for cryptococcosis in HIV-infected patients in the United States and Europe. This recommendation is based on the relative infrequency of cryptococcal disease, lack of survival benefits, potential for drug-drug interactions, creation of direct antifungal drug resistance, medication compliance, and costs. Routine primary prophylaxis for cryptococcosis is also not currently recommended in transplant recipients (Ref. 44).

    The emergence of C. gattii in the Pacific Northwest in 2004, primarily among immunocompetent individuals, raised concerns about a new serious infectious disease risk for people residing in or traveling to the Pacific Northwest states. However, there have been only 60 cases reported to CDC between 2004 and 2010 (Ref. 49). U.S. cases continue to be reported at a relatively low rate, 20-23 cases per year each in 2012 and 2013 (Ref. 50). The emergence of C. gattii in the United States has not resulted in a large number of cases that could potentially warrant a significant market for treatment or prevention.

    Therefore, in the United States and other developed countries, there does not appear to be a significant market for developing new drugs or vaccines for the treatment or prevention of CM. Additionally, given the low incidence of CM and the low risk of infection to immunocompetent individuals, it is unlikely that antifungal therapies specifically directed against CM will become a national stockpiling priority in the foreseeable future.

    2. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations

    CM is not currently designated by WHO as a Neglected Tropical Disease (Ref. 17). Additionally, no DALY data were found to distinguish the disease burden of CM in developing versus developed countries. However, the incidence of CM is high in developing countries due to limited access to antiretroviral therapy to treat HIV infection (Ref. 42). Annually, there are approximately 1 million cases of CM worldwide in patients with HIV/AIDS and 625,000 deaths (Ref. 46). Approximately 75 percent of these infections are in sub-Saharan Africa (id.). The case fatality rate for CM patients living in sub-Saharan Africa is 35 to 65 percent, compared to a 10- to 20-percent case fatality rate in most developed nations (Ref. 51).

    The HIV epidemic imposes a particular burden on women and children, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa where women account for approximately 57 percent of all people living with HIV (Ref. 52). In 2012, there were an estimated 260,000 newly infected children in low- and middle-income countries (id.). Children with HIV are more likely to face gaps in access to HIV treatment. For example, in 2012, approximately 34 percent of children had access to HIV treatment versus approximately 64 percent for adults (id.). As CM is most prevalent in persons infected with HIV and HIV disproportionately impacts women and children, it is reasonable to conclude that CM also disproportionately affects these populations.

    Given the factors described above, FDA has determined that CM meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating cryptococcal meningitis as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.

    III. Process for Requesting Additional Diseases To Be Added to the List

    The purpose of this order is to add diseases to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. By expanding the list with this order, FDA does not mean to preclude the addition of other diseases to this list in the future. Interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list to the public docket established by FDA for this purpose (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567). Such requests should be accompanied by information to document that the disease meets the criteria set forth in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. FDA will periodically review these requests, and, when appropriate, expand the list. For further information, see https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm534162.htm.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final order reiterates the “open” status of the previously established public docket through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(S) of the FD&C Act. Such a request for information is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Specifically, “[f]acts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof” are exempt, “provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration of the comment.”

    V. References

    The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. Petersen, L.R. and A.M. Powers, “Chikungunya: Epidemiology,” F1000Research, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):82, 2016. 2. Sergon, K., A.A. Yahaya, J. Brown, et al., “Seroprevalence of Chikungunya Virus Infection on Grande Comore Island, Union of the Comoros, 2005,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 76:1189-1193, 2007. 3. Simon, F., E. Javelle, A. Cabie, et al., “French Guidelines for the Management of Chikungunya (Acute and Persistent Presentations) November 2014,” Medecine Et Maladies Infectieuses, 45:243-263, 2015. 4. Borgherini, G., P. Poubeau, A. Jossaume, et al., “Persistent Arthralgia Associated With Chikungunya Virus: A Study of 88 Adult Patients on Reunion Island,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 47:469-475, 2008. 5. Abdelnabi, R., J. Neyts, and L. Delang, “Towards Antivirals Against Chikungunya Virus,” Antiviral Research, 121:59-68, 2015. 6. McSweegan, E., S.C. Weaver, M. Lecuit, et al., “The Global Virus Network: Challenging Chikungunya,” Antiviral Research, 120:147-152, 2015. 7. LaBeaud, A.D., “Why Arboviruses Can Be Neglected Tropical Diseases,” PLOS Neglected Tropical Disease, 2:e247, 2008. 8. CDC, “Chikungunya: 2015 Final Data for the United States;” available at https://www.cdc.gov/chikungunya/geo/united-states-2015.html. 9. Pan American Health Organization, Regional Office for the Americans of the World Health Organization, “Chikungunya;” available at https://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_topics&view=article&id=343&Itemid=40931. 10. CDC, “Chikungunya Virus Geographic Distribution;” available at https://www.cdc.gov/chikungunya/geo/index.html. 11. Writer, J.V. and L. Hurt, “Chikungunya Infection in DoD Healthcare Beneficiaries Following the 2013 Introduction of the Virus into the Western Hemisphere, 1 January 2014 to 28 February 2015,” Medical Surveillance Monthly Report, 22:2-6, 2015. 12. Labeaud, A.D., F. Bashir, and C.H. King, “Measuring the Burden of Arboviral Diseases: The Spectrum of Morbidity and Mortality from Four Prevalent Infections,” Population Health Metrics, 9:1, 2011. 13. Marimoutou, C., E. Vivier, M. Oliver, et al., “Morbidity and Impaired Quality of Life 30 Months After Chikungunya Infection: Comparative Cohort of Infected and Uninfected French Military Policemen in Reunion Island,” Medicine (Baltimore), 91:212-219, 2012. 14. Krishnamoorthy, K., K.T. Harichandrakumar, A. Krishna Kumari, et al., “Burden of Chikungunya in India: Estimates of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) Lost in 2006 Epidemic,” Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, 46:26-35, 2009. 15. Labeaud, A.D., F. Bashir, C.H. King, “Measuring the Burden of Arboviral Diseases: The Spectrum of Morbidity and Mortality from Four Prevalent Infections,” Population Health Metrics, 9:1, 2011. 16. Crosby, L., C. Perreau, B. Madeux, et al., “Severe Manifestations of Chikungunya Virus in Critically Ill Patients During the 2013-2014 Caribbean Outbreak,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 48:78-80, 2016. 17. WHO Neglected Tropical Diseases Program, “Neglected Tropical Diseases;” available at http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/diseases/en/(accessed August 19, 2016). 18. Seregin, A., N. Yun, and S. Paessler, “Lymphocytic Choriomenengitis, Lassa Fever, and South American Hemorrhagic Fevers (Arenaviruses),” in: Mandell, G.L., J.E. Bennett, and R. Dolin, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 8th ed. PA: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2031-2037, 2014. 19. CDC, “Imported Lassa Fever—New Jersey, 2004,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53:894-897, 2004, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15457145. 20. Cummins, D., J.B. McCormick, D. Bennett, et al., “Acute Sensorineural Deafness in Lassa Fever,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 264:2093-2096, 1990. 21. CDC, “Lassa Fever Confirmed in Death of U.S. Traveler Returning from Liberia,” May 25, 2015; available at https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0525-lassa.html. 22. Rotz, L.D., A.S. Khan, S.R. Lillibridge, et al., “Public Health Assessment of Potential Biological Terrorism Agents,” Emerging Infectious Disease, 8:225-230, 2002. 23. Borio, L., T. Inglesby, C.J. Peters, et al., “Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses as Biological Weapons: Medical and Public Health Management,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 287:2391-2397, 2002. 24. Ryan, C.P., “Zoonoses Likely To Be Used in Bioterrorism,” Public Health Reports, 123:276-281; available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289981/. 25. Department of Health and Human Services, “2017-2018 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Strategy and Implementation Plan,” 2017; available at https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/mcm/phemce/Pages/strategy.aspx. 26. WHO, “Essential Medicines and Health Products: WHO Publishes List of Top Emerging Diseases Likely To Cause Major Epidemics,” December 10, 2015; available at http://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/WHO-list-of-top-emerging-diseases/en/. 27. WHO, “2017 Annual Review of Diseases Prioritized Under the Research and Development Blueprint,” February 11, 2018; available at http://www.who.int/blueprint/what/research-development/2017-Prioritization-Long-Report.pdf. 28. Bassin, S.L., C.D. Rupprecht, and T.P. Bleck, “Rhabdoviruses,” in: Mandell, G.L., J.E. Bennett, R. Dolin, eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 7th ed., Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2249-2258, 2010. 29. Rupprecht, C.E., D. Briggs, C.M. Brown, et al., “Use of a Reduced (4-Dose) Vaccine Schedule for Postexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Human Rabies: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Recomm Rep. 59(RR-2):1-9, March 19, 2010. Erratum in: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Recomm Rep. 59(16):493, April 30, 2010. 30. WHO, “WHO Guide for Rabies Pre and Post Exposure Prophylaxis in Humans (updated 2014);” available at http://www.who.int/rabies/PEP_Prophylaxis_guideline_15_12_2014.pdf (accessed September 7, 2016). 31. WHO, “WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies, 2nd Report, WHO Technical Report Series 982 Geneva,” WHO Press, 2013. 32. WHO, “Distribution of Risk Levels for Humans Contacting Rabies, Worldwide, 2013;” available at http://www.who.int/rabies/Global_distribution_risk_humans_contracting_rabies_2013.png (accessed August 19, 2016). 33. Monroe, B.P., P. Yager, J. Blanton, et al., “Rabies Surveillance in the United States During 2014,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 248(7):777-788, April 1, 2016. 34. Christian, K.A., J.D. Blanton, M. Auslander, et al., “Epidemiology of Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis—United States of America, 2006-2008,” Vaccine, 27(51):7156-7161, November 27, 2009. 35. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015,” available at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 36. WHO, “Rabies Fact Sheet,” March 2016; available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs099/en/ (accessed August 18, 2016). 37. See https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/rabies/facts (accessed January 9, 2017). 38. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, “Expert Consultation on Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis,” January 15, 2009; available at https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/0906_MER_Expert_Consultation_on_Rabies_Post-exposure_Prophylaxis.pdf (accessed January 9, 2017). 39. See https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/AR_Details.aspx?ID=0902c85180010355 (accessed May 5, 2017). 40. CDC, “Cost of Rabies Prevention,” updated August 3, 2015; available at https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/cost.html (accessed February 9, 2017). 41. Gullo, F.P., S.A. Rossi, J.C. Sardi, et al., “Cryptococcosis: Epidemiology, Fungal Resistance, and New Alternatives for Treatment,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 32:1377-1391, 2013. 42. CDC, “C. neoformans Infection Statistics;” available at https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/cryptococcosis-neoformans/statistics.html (accessed August 8, 2016). 43. Makadzange, A.T. and G. McHugh, “New Approaches to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cryptococcal Meningitis,” Seminars in Neurology, 34(1):47-60, 2014. 44. Perfect, J.R., W.E. Dismukes, F. Dromer, et al., “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease: 2010 Update by the Infectious Disease Society of America,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50:291-322, 2010. 45. Rothe, C., D.J. Sloan, P. Goodson, et al., “A Prospective Longitudinal Study of the Clinical Outcomes from Cryptococcal Meningitis Following Treatment Induction with 800 mg Oral Fluconazole in Blantyre, Malawi,” PLOS One, 8(6):e67311, 2013. 46. Park, B.J., K.A. Wannemuehler, B.J. Marston, et al., “Estimation of the Current Global Burden of Cryptococcal Meningitis Among Persons Living with HIV/AIDS,” AIDS, 23:525-530, 2009. 47. Mirza, S.A., M. Phelan, D. Rimland, et al., “The Changing Epidemiology of Cryptococcosis: An Update from Population-Based Active Surveillance in 2 Large Metropolitan Areas, 1992-2000,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 36(6):789-794, 2003. 48. Pyrgos, V., A.E. Seitz, C.A. Steiner, et al., “Epidemiology of Cryptococcal Meningitis in the US: 1997-2009,” PLOS One, 8(2):e56269, 2013. 49. CDC, “Emergence of Cryptococcus gattii—Pacific Northwest, 2004-2010,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(28):865-868, 2010 available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5928a1.htm?s_cid=mm5928a1_w. 50. Espinel-Ingroff, A. and S.E. Kidd, “Current Trends in the Prevalence of Cryptococcus Gattii in the United States and Canada,” Infection and Drug Resistance, 8:89-97, May 11, 2015. 51. WHO, “Rapid Advice: Diagnosis, Prevention and Management of Cryptococcal Disease in HIV-Infected Adults, Adolescents and Children,” December 2011; available at http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/cryptococcal_disease2011/ (accessed August 8, 2016). 52. Joint Unite