Federal Register Vol. 83, No.18,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 18 (January 26, 2018)

Page Range3563-3935
FR Document

83_FR_18
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 3935 - Delegation of Responsibilities Under the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016PDF
83 FR 3776 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 3768 - Change to Date and Time of Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 3771 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 3599 - Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine Parade; Hillsborough Bay; Tampa, FLPDF
83 FR 3824 - Sunshine Act Meeting; CancellationPDF
83 FR 3710 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 3601 - Bacillus thuringiensis Cry51Aa2.834_16; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
83 FR 3706 - Reopening of Comment Period on the Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational OpportunitiesPDF
83 FR 3764 - Delegation of Authority to the Assistant Secretary for AdministrationPDF
83 FR 3691 - National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; CancellationPDF
83 FR 3698 - Avista Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway PrescriptionsPDF
83 FR 3699 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725l); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
83 FR 3699 - Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Paper Hearing ProcedurePDF
83 FR 3697 - Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 3710 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 4663, Guaranty National Bank of Tallahassee, Tallahassee, FloridaPDF
83 FR 3765 - Designations of Chief Acquisition Officer and Senior Procurement ExecutivePDF
83 FR 3701 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
83 FR 3764 - Revocation of Delegation of Authority to the Chief Operations OfficerPDF
83 FR 3658 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various CommoditiesPDF
83 FR 3589 - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Delay of the Revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human SubjectsPDF
83 FR 3702 - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Nominations to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 3704 - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting and Nominations of Ad Hoc Panel MembersPDF
83 FR 3603 - Calcium Salts of Phosphorous Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
83 FR 3656 - Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; North Dakota; Control of Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration UnitsPDF
83 FR 3754 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 3754 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 3749 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3749 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 3605 - Chlorfenapyr; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 3749 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3750 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3750 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 3753 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 3752 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3860 - Twenty Third Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)PDF
83 FR 3610 - Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency ExemptionsPDF
83 FR 3615 - Difenoconazole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 3687 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3866 - Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working GroupPDF
83 FR 3716 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-October Through December 2017PDF
83 FR 3715 - Medicare Program; Request for Nominations to the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient PaymentPDF
83 FR 3709 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
83 FR 3741 - International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; World Health Organization; Scheduling Recommendations; Carfentanil;4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and Ten Other Substances; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 3734 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of FoodPDF
83 FR 3586 - Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological ProductsPDF
83 FR 3631 - Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products; Companion to Direct Final RulePDF
83 FR 3777 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 3696 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 3624 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 3622 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 3760 - Pueblo of Acoma; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 3714 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3860 - Meeting of the United States-Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation and Request for Comments on the Meeting Agenda and the 2018-2021 Work ProgramPDF
83 FR 3763 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Fire Management Assistance Grant ProgramPDF
83 FR 3760 - Florida; Amendment No. 14 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 3760 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 3682 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 3583 - Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain PlasticsPDF
83 FR 3696 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3748 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
83 FR 3757 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0040PDF
83 FR 3677 - Ripe Olives From Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
83 FR 3674 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan: Amended Preliminary Results and Preliminary Determination of No ShipmentsPDF
83 FR 3675 - Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011PDF
83 FR 3685 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
83 FR 3754 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0085PDF
83 FR 3756 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0029PDF
83 FR 3759 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0058PDF
83 FR 3755 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0036PDF
83 FR 3684 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 3697 - Charter Renewal: Environmental Management Advisory BoardPDF
83 FR 3766 - Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Decision for Proposed Land Exchange Between the Bureau of Land Management and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 3765 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Oil and Gas, or Geothermal Resources: Transfers and AssignmentsPDF
83 FR 3686 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated ProcessesPDF
83 FR 3867 - Joint Report: Differences in Accounting and Capital Standards Among the Federal Banking Agencies as of September 30, 2017; Report to Congressional CommitteesPDF
83 FR 3591 - Freedom of Information Act ProceduresPDF
83 FR 3691 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
83 FR 3680 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); MeetingPDF
83 FR 3682 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 3683 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3680 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 3688 - Arms Sales NotificationPDF
83 FR 3769 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 3681 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 3563 - Rules of Practice and Procedure; Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for InflationPDF
83 FR 3794 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Listing Standard for Warrants in Section 703.12 of the Exchange's Listed Company ManualPDF
83 FR 3812 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Modify Its Requirements With Respect to Physical Delivery of Proxy Materials to the ExchangePDF
83 FR 3842 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the Causeway International Value NextSharesTMPDF
83 FR 3799 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price ListPDF
83 FR 3789 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust Bitcoin Strategy ETF and the First Trust Inverse Bitcoin Strategy ETF, Each a Series of the First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VII, Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund SharesPDF
83 FR 3819 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the REX Bitcoin Strategy ETF and the REX Short Bitcoin Strategy ETF, Each a Series of the Exchange Listed Funds Trust, Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund SharesPDF
83 FR 3820 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Common Shares of Beneficial Interest of the PowerShares Income Builder Portfolio, a Series of PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust IIPDF
83 FR 3820 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500 Buffer Protect Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund SharesPDF
83 FR 3673 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3776 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 3772 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection: 2018 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA)PDF
83 FR 3708 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
83 FR 3661 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
83 FR 3707 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 3708 - Information Collection Being Submitted to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 3661 - National Television Multiple Ownership RulePDF
83 FR 3667 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for RulemakingPDF
83 FR 3863 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; SikhsPAC and the North American Punjabiz Trucker AssociationPDF
83 FR 3861 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 3864 - Hours of Service of Drivers: National Asphalt Pavement Association, Inc.; Application for ExemptionsPDF
83 FR 3859 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of WashingtonPDF
83 FR 3707 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 3731 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3684 - Council Coordination Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 3731 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3712 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
83 FR 3626 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
83 FR 3781 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 3711 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 3713 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 3770 - Certain Subsea Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 3771 - Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Electronics Components, and Products Containing Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 3736 - Advisory Committee; Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
83 FR 3625 - Technical Amendment To Update Internet Web Addresses in Marine Mammal Protection Act and Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act RegulationsPDF
83 FR 3670 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed SeasonPDF
83 FR 3732 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VARUBIPDF
83 FR 3754 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 3751 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 3751 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3751 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 3737 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VRAYLARPDF
83 FR 3824 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
83 FR 3819 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund SharesPDF
83 FR 3839 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add a New Rule 3215 and Commentary Thereto To Codify PSX Participant Risk Settings in PSX and To Authorize the Exchange To Share Those Settings With the Clearing Member That Clears Transactions on Behalf of the PSX ParticipantPDF
83 FR 3846 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E and To List and Trade Shares of the Royce Pennsylvania ETF; Royce Premier ETF; and Royce Total Return ETF Under Proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900-EPDF
83 FR 3816 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule Concerning Firm Incentive ProgramsPDF
83 FR 3813 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Manner in Which the Exchange Assesses Its Options Regulatory FeePDF
83 FR 3797 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Harmonize the Definition of Non-Professional User in Its Fee Schedule With That of Its AffiliatesPDF
83 FR 3834 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add a New Rule 4765 and Commentary Thereto To Codify Participant Risk Settings and To Authorize the Exchange To Share those Risk Settings With the Clearing Member That Clears Transactions on Behalf of the ParticipantPDF
83 FR 3804 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the Process for Submitting and Accepting ETF Creations and RedemptionsPDF
83 FR 3782 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify OCC's Rules Regarding the Exercise Procedures for Certain Options on FuturesPDF
83 FR 3821 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to the ICC Rules, ICC Risk Management Model Description Document, ICC Risk Management Framework, ICC Stress Testing Framework, and ICC Liquidity Risk Management FrameworkPDF
83 FR 3790 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 7047PDF
83 FR 3837 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees for Customized Functionality and/or Connectivity on the Silexx Trading PlatformPDF
83 FR 3807 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Cboe Vest S&P 500® Premium Income ETF Under Rule 14.11(c)(5)PDF
83 FR 3784 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees To Introduce a New Pricing ModelPDF
83 FR 3735 - Hypertension: Developing Fixed-Dose Combination Drugs for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 3740 - Recommendations for Dual 510(k) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Waiver by Application Studies; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 3739 - Select Updates for Recommendations for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Waiver Applications for Manufacturers of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 3778 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 3676 - Meeting of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 3676 - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 3773 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; YouthBuild (YB) Reporting SystemPDF
83 FR 3577 - Addition of Certain Entities; Removal of Certain Entities; and Revisions of Entries on the Entity ListPDF
83 FR 3782 - Performance Review Board MembershipPDF
83 FR 3869 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States CourtsPDF
83 FR 3681 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Permit Family of FormsPDF
83 FR 3673 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Miscellaneous Short Supply ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 3767 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Converse County Oil and Gas Project, Converse County, WyomingPDF
83 FR 3774 - Notice; 2017 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act Annual ReportPDF
83 FR 3687 - Acceptance of Group Application Under Public Law and Department of Defense DirectivePDF
83 FR 3635 - Regulatory Review of Manufactured Housing RulesPDF
83 FR 3585 - Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans (HIRE Vets) Medallion Program; Agency Information Collection Activities; OMB ApprovalsPDF
83 FR 3880 - Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of AuthorityPDF
83 FR 3564 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 3566 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 3630 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.PDF
83 FR 3628 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 3569 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 3572 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 3570 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 3575 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 3636 - Revisions to Testing Regulations for Air Emission SourcesPDF

Issue

83 18 Friday, January 26, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3673 2018-01412 AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Acceptance of Group Application, 3687 2018-01308 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Requests for Information: Civil Investigative Demands and Associated Processes, 3686-3687 2018-01435 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3711-3714 2018-01380 2018-01381 Meetings: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 3712-3713 2018-01387 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3714-3715 2018-01459 Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances: October through December 2017, 3716-3730 2018-01475 Requests for Nominations: Medicare Program; Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment, 3715-3716 2018-01474 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3731-3732 2018-01388 2018-01390 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Special Local Regulations: Gasparilla Marine Parade, Hillsborough Bay, Tampa, FL, 3599-3601 2018-01564 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3754-3760 2018-01440 2018-01441 2018-01442 2018-01443 2018-01448 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 3684-3685 2018-01439 2018-01444 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Joint Report to Congressional Committees: Differences in Accounting and Capital Standards Among Federal Banking Agencies as of September 30, 2017, 3867-3869 2018-01434 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics, 3583-3585 2018-01451 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3687-3688 2018-01478 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3696-3697 2018-01450 Arms Sales, 3688-3696 2018-01426 2018-01432 Meetings: Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, 3696 2018-01465 National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Cancellation, 3691 2018-01507
Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: YouthBuild Reporting System, 3773-3774 2018-01333 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Environmental Management Advisory Board, 3697 2018-01438
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Chlorfenapyr, 3605-3610 2018-01487 Difenoconazole, 3615-3622 2018-01479 Pesticide Tolerances; Emergency Exemptions: Flonicamid, 3610-3615 2018-01480 Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: Calcium Salts of Phosphorous Acid, 3603-3605 2018-01494 Tolerance Exemptions: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry51Aa2.834_16, 3601-3603 2018-01519 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Approvals and Promulgations: North Dakota; Control of Emissions from Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 3656-3658 2018-01492 Pesticide Petitions: Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 3658-3661 2018-01498 Revisions to Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources, 3636-3656 2018-00470 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment No. 2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities, 3706-3707 2018-01517 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, 3707 2018-01391 Meetings: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel; Nominations of Ad Hoc Panel Members, 3704-3706 2018-01495 Nominations: FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, 3702-3704 2018-01496 Pesticide Product Registrations: New Uses, 3701-3702 2018-01500 Farm Credit System Insurance Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation RULES Rules of Practice and Procedure: Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for Inflation, 3563-3564 2018-01421 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 3564-3566 2018-01197 Airbus Helicopters, 3566-3568 2018-01196 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures, 3569-3577 2018-01167 2018-01169 2018-01170 2018-01171 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Helicopters, 3628-3630 2018-01194 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., 3630-3631 2018-01195 NOTICES Meetings: NextGen Advisory Committee, 3860-3861 2018-01481 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES National Television Multiple Ownership, 3661-3667 2018-01404 Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 3661 2018-01407 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3707-3710 2018-01405 2018-01406 2018-01408 2018-01472 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Joint Report to Congressional Committees: Differences in Accounting and Capital Standards Among Federal Banking Agencies as of September 30, 2017, 3867-3869 2018-01434 Terminations of Receiverships: 4663, Guaranty National Bank of Tallahassee, Tallahassee, FL, 3710 2018-01502 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 3622-3625 2018-01461 2018-01463 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Fire Management Assistance Grant Program, 3763-3764 2018-01457 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 3760-3763 2018-01455 Major Disaster Declarations: Florida; Amendment No. 14, 3760 2018-01456 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: Pueblo of Acoma, 3760 2018-01460 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3699-3701 2018-01505 Applications: Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., 3697-3698 2018-01503 Hearings: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 3699 2018-01504 Hydroelectric Applications: Avista Corp., 3698-3699 2018-01506 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3710-3711 2018-01529 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers: Exemption Applications: SikhsPAC and North American Punjabiz Trucker Assn., 3863-3864 2018-01402 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: National Asphalt Pavement Assn., Inc., 3864-3866 2018-01400 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 3861-3863 2018-01401 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Joint Report to Congressional Committees: Differences in Accounting and Capital Standards Among Federal Banking Agencies as of September 30, 2017, 3867-3869 2018-01434 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products, 3586-3589 2018-01468 PROPOSED RULES Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products, 3631-3635 2018-01467 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Irradiation in Production, Processing, and Handling of Food, 3734-3735 2018-01470 Charter Renewals: Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee, 3736-3737 2018-01377 Determinations of Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: VARUBI, 3732-3734 2018-01373 VRAYLAR, 3737-3739 2018-01368 Guidance: Hypertension: Developing Fixed-Dose Combination Drugs for Treatment, 3735-3736 2018-01352 Recommendations for Dual 510(k) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Waiver by Application Studies, 3740-3741 2018-01350 Select Updates for Recommendations for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Waiver Applications for Manufacturers of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices, 3739-3740 2018-01349 International Drug Scheduling: Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; World Health Organization; Scheduling Recommendations; Carfentanil; 4-fluoroamphetamine and Ten Other Substances, 3741-3748 2018-01471 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

PROPOSED RULES Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority, 3880-3931 2018-01226 NOTICES Designations of Classes of Employees for Additions to Special Exposure Cohorts: Final Effect, 3748-3749 2018-01449
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects: Delay of Revisions to Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects, 3589-3591 2018-01497 PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Review of Manufactured Housing Rules, 3635-3636 2018-01276 NOTICES Delegations of Authority: Assistant Secretary for Administration, 3764 2018-01508 Chief Operations Officer; Revocation, 3764-3765 2018-01499 Designations of Chief Acquisition Officer and Senior Procurement Executive, 3765 2018-01501 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Entity List: Additions, Deletions, and Revisions, 3577-3583 2018-01332 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Miscellaneous Short Supply Activities, 3673-3674 2018-01323 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan, 3674-3675 2018-01446 Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 3675-3676 2018-01445 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ripe Olives from Spain, 3677-3680 2018-01447 Meetings: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, 3676-3677 2018-01334 2018-01335 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Programmable Logic Controllers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 3769-3770 2018-01425 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Electronics components, and Products Containing Same, 3771-3772 2018-01378 Certain Subsea Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof, 3770-3771 2018-01379 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3768-3769, 3771 2018-01625 2018-01626 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 3772-3773 2018-01410 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Veterans Employment and Training Service

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Oil and Gas, or Geothermal Resources; Transfers and Assignments, 3765-3766 2018-01436 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Converse County Oil and Gas Project, Converse County, WY, 3767-3768 2018-01320 Decision for Proposed Land Exchange between Bureau of Land Management and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, California, 3766-3767 2018-01437 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES 2017 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act Annual Report, 3774-3776 2018-01319 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Lamp, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 3667-3670 2018-01403 National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission RULES Freedom of Information Act Procedures, 3591-3599 2018-01433 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 3751-3753 2018-01369 2018-01482 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 3751 2018-01370 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 3749 2018-01486 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 3749, 3754 2018-01372 2018-01488 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 3749-3750 2018-01489 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 3754 2018-01490 National Institute on Aging, 3750, 3753 2018-01483 2018-01484 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 3750 2018-01485 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 3754 2018-01491 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 3626-3627 2018-01384 Internet Web Addresses in Marine Mammal Protection Act and Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act Regulations, 3625-3626 2018-01375 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed Season, 3670-3672 2018-01374 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Permit Family of Forms, 3681-3682 2018-01327 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 3680 2018-01427 Council Coordination Committee, 3684 2018-01389 Fisheries of Gulf of Mexico Southeast Data, Assessment and Review; Correction, 3682-3683 2018-01453 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 3680, 3682-3684 2018-01428 2018-01429 2018-01430 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 3681 2018-01422 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, 3776 2018-01411 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3776-3777 2018-01663 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pipeline Safety; Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working Group, 3866-3867 2018-01476 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 3777-3778 2018-01466 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016; Delegation of Responsibilities (Memorandum of January 9, 2018), 3933-3935 2018-01709 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3778-3782 2018-01347 2018-01383 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Performance Review Board Membership, 3782 2018-01331 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 3824 2018-01550 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 3813-3816 2018-01362 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 3789, 3797-3799, 3807-3812, 3819-3820 2018-01354 2018-01361 2018-01366 2018-01413 2018-01414 2018-01415 2018-01416 Cboe Exchange, Inc., 3816-3819, 3824-3834, 3837-3838 2018-01355 2018-01363 2018-01367 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 3821-3824 2018-01357 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 3834-3837 2018-01360 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 3784-3789 2018-01353 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 3839-3841 2018-01365 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 3790-3794, 3842-3845 2018-01356 2018-01418 National Securities Clearing Corp., 3804-3807 2018-01359 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 3794-3797, 3799-3804, 3812-3813 2018-01417 2018-01419 2018-01420 NYSE Arca, Inc., 3846-3859 2018-01364 Options Clearing Corp., 3782-3784 2018-01358 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Washington, 3859 2018-01399 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: United States-Jordan Joint Forum on Environmental Technical Cooperation, 3860 2018-01458 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Sentencing United States Sentencing Commission NOTICES Sentencing Guidelines: United States Courts, 3869-3878 2018-01328 Veterans Employment Veterans Employment and Training Service RULES Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans Medallion Program: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 3585-3586 2018-01262 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, 3880-3931 2018-01226 Part III Presidential Documents, 3933-3935 2018-01709 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 18 Friday, January 26, 2018 Rules and Regulations FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 1411 RIN 3055-AA14 Rules of Practice and Procedure; Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for Inflation AGENCY:

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements inflation adjustments to civil money penalties (CMPs) that the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) may impose under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. These adjustments are required by 2015 amendments to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 26, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard Rubin, General Counsel, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, (703) 883-4380, TTY (703) 883-4390, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act) 1 to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The Inflation Adjustment Act provides for the regular evaluation of CMPs and requires FCSIC, and every other Federal agency with authority to impose CMPs, to ensure that CMPs continue to maintain their deterrent values.2

1 Public Law 101-410, Oct. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Public Law 104-134, title III, sec. 31001(s)(1), Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321-373; Public Law 105-362, title XIII, sec. 1301(a), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3293; Public Law 114-74, title VII, sec. 701(b), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 599.

2 Under the amended Inflation Adjustment Act, a CMP is defined as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (1) Either is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (2) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (3) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. All three requirements must be met for a fine to be considered a CMP.

FCSIC must enact regulations that annually adjust its CMPs pursuant to the inflation adjustment formula of the amended Inflation Adjustment Act and rounded using a method prescribed by the Inflation Adjustment Act. The new amounts will apply to penalties assessed on or after the effective date of this rule. Agencies do not have discretion in choosing whether to adjust a CMP, by how much to adjust a CMP, or the methods used to determine the adjustment.

B. CMPs Imposed Pursuant to Section 5.65 of the Farm Credit Act

First, section 5.65(c) of the Farm Credit Act, as amended (Act), provides that any insured Farm Credit System bank that willfully fails or refuses to file any certified statement or pay any required premium shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $100 for each day that such violations continue, which penalty FCSIC may recover for its use.3 Second, section 5.65(d) of the Act provides that, except with the prior written consent of the Farm Credit Administration, it shall be unlawful for any person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust to serve as a director, officer, or employee of any System institution.4 For each willful violation of section 5.65(d), the institution involved shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $100 for each day during which the violation continues, which FCSIC may recover for its use.

3 12 U.S.C. 2277a-14(c).

4 12 U.S.C. 2277a-14(d).

FCSIC's current § 1411.1 provides that FCSIC can impose a maximum penalty of $201 per day for a violation under section 5.65(c) and (d) of the Act.

C. Required Adjustments

The 2015 Act requires agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation. Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the October Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. Based on the CPI-U for October 2017, not seasonally adjusted, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018 is 1.02041.5 Multiplying 1.02041 times the current penalty amount of $201, after rounding to the nearest dollar as required by the 2015 Act, results is a new penalty amount of $205.

5See Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-18-03 (December 15, 2017).

D. Notice and Comment Not Required by Administrative Procedure Act

In accordance with the 2015 Act, Federal agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding” Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act. This means that public procedure generally required for agency rulemaking—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1411

Banks, banking, Civil money penalties, Penalties.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1411 of chapter XIV, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 1411—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1411 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 2277a-7(10), 2277a-14(c) and (d); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Revise § 1411.1 to read as follows:
§ 1411.1 Inflation adjustment of civil money penalties for failure to file a certified statement, pay any premium required or obtain approval before employment of persons convicted of criminal offenses.

In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, a civil money penalty imposed pursuant to section 5.65(c) or (d) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, shall not exceed $205 per day for each day the violation continues.

Dated: January 23, 2018. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Board, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2018-01421 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6710-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0716; Product Identifier 2016-NM-165-AD; Amendment 39-19165; AD 2018-02-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-02-01, which applied to certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. AD 2016-02-01 required repetitive inspections to detect cracks of the pressurized floor fittings at a certain frame, and renewal of the zone protective finish or replacement of fittings with new fittings if necessary. AD 2016-02-01 also provided an optional modification that was terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2016-02-01, and requires accomplishment of the modification that was optional in AD 2016-02-01. This AD was prompted by the results of an additional fatigue analysis of cracking of the pressurized floor fittings and a determination that the optional modification should become a required action. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective March 2, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of March 3, 2016 (81 FR 4878, January 28, 2016).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0716.

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-2017-0716; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-02-01, Amendment 39-18380 (81 FR 4878, January 28, 2016) (“AD 2016-02-01”). AD 2016-02-01 applied to certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38618).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0181, dated September 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

During centre fuselage certification full scale fatigue testing, damage was found on the pressurized floor fittings at Frame (FR) 36, below the lower surface panel.

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

To prevent such damage, Airbus developed modification 21282, which was introduced in production from MSN [manufacturer serial number] 0105, to reinforce the pressurized floor fitting lower surface by changing material. For affected in-service aeroplanes, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1028, introducing repetitive inspections, and SB A320-57-1029, which provides modification instructions.

DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 95-099-067 to require these repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, corrective action(s), while the modification was specified in that [French] AD as optional terminating action for these inspections.

Following new analysis in the frame of Extended Service Goal exercise, the inspection thresholds and intervals were revised to meet the original Design Service Goal. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0226 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-02-01 (81 FR 4878, January 28, 2016)] to retain the requirements of DGAC France AD 95-099-067, which was superseded, but required those actions within reduced compliance times.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, in the frame of Widespread Fatigue Damages analysis, the situation has been reassessed and it has been decided to reclassify the modification, still stated as `optional' terminating action in EASA AD 2013-0226, to the status `mandatory'.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0226, which is superseded, but requires embodiment of the modification as specified in Airbus SB A320-57-1029.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0716.

Comments

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

Request To Revise the Applicability

Allegiant Air noted that the applicability specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD included Airbus Model A320-214 airplanes. The commenter asked if Model A320-214 airplanes were included in the applicability in error. The commenter observed that neither the applicability of AD 2016-02-01 or EASA AD 2016-0181, nor the effectivity of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013, included Model A320-214 airplanes.

We infer that the commenter is requesting that Model A320-214 airplanes be removed from the applicability of the proposed AD. We agree, for the reasons provided by the commenter. This final rule is not applicable to Model A320-214 airplanes; therefore, we have revised the applicability specified in paragraph (c) of this AD by removing Model A320-214 airplanes.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. The service information describes procedures for an inspection to detect cracks of the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36, renewal of the zone protective finish, and replacement of fittings with new fittings.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1029, Revision 02, dated June 16, 1999. The service information describes procedures for modification of the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 per inspection cycle $0 $935 per inspection cycle $12,155 per inspection cycle. Modification 85 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,225 5,320 $12,545 $163,085.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-02-01, Amendment 39-18380 (81 FR 4878, January 28, 2016), and adding the following new AD: 2018-02-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-19165; Docket No. FAA-2017-0716; Product Identifier 2016-NM-165-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective March 2, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2016-02-01, Amendment 39-18380 (81 FR 4878, January 28, 2016) (“AD 2016-02-01”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers up through 0104 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the pressurized floor fittings at frame (FR) 36, which could result in the reduced structural integrity of the floor fittings and subsequent depressurization of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

(1) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 9,300 flight cycles or 18,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Before exceeding 20,900 flight cycles or 41,800 flight hours, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane.

(ii) Within 9,300 flight cycles or 18,600 flight cycles since the most recent inspection accomplished in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013.

(iii) Within 1,250 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after March 3, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-02-01), without exceeding 12,000 flight cycles since the most recent inspection accomplished in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013.

(2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(h) Modification

Before exceeding 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane: Modify (replace aluminum fittings with titanium fittings) the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1029, Revision 02, dated June 16, 1999. Accomplishment of this modification is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the modified airplane only.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if that inspection was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, dated August 12, 1991; or Revision 01, dated April 19, 1996.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if that modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1029, dated August 12, 1991; or Revision 01, dated November 10, 1992.

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

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

(k) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0181, dated September 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0716.

(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(4) and (l)(5) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 3, 2016 (81 FR 4878, January 28, 2016).

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1029, Revision 02, dated June 16, 1999.

(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com.

(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 10, 2018. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01197 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1201; Product Identifier 2017-SW-068-AD; Amendment 39-19155; AD 2018-02-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor (M/R) mast jet oil lubrication hose (oil hose). This AD is prompted by a report of a blocked oil hose. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these helicopters.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective February 12, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by March 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1201; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

Discussion

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2017-0089, dated May 17, 2017 (AD 2017-0089), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. EASA advises that an oil hose part number (P/N) 704A34-412-015 (manufacturing P/N 4T13) was found blocked during unscheduled maintenance. EASA states an investigation showed the hose had become completely blocked with solder during the manufacturing process, resulting in a complete absence of lubrication from the direct oil jet to the M/R mast upper bearing. According to EASA this condition could lead to degradation of the M/R mast bearings, loss of transmission function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To correct this condition, EASA AD 2017-0089 requires a one-time inspection of the oil hose to determine if there is any blockage, replacing the oil hose and the M/R mast if the oil hose is blocked, and marking unobstructed hoses with an “x” after the P/N.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

Airbus Helicopters has co-published as one document Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 62.00.20 for non-FAA type-certificated AS550-series helicopters, EASB No. 62.00.23 for non-FAA type-certificated AS555-series helicopters, EASB No. 62.00.36 for AS355-series helicopters, EASB No. 62.00.39 for AS350-series helicopters, and EASB No. 62A015 for EC130 series helicopters, all Revision 1 and dated May 19, 2017. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the oil hose for the presence of oil, inspecting the oil hose for blockage, and marking the hose if there is no blockage.

AD Requirements

This AD requires, within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS):

• Removing the upper end of the oil hose and inspecting the inside of the hose to determine if there is any oil present. If there is no oil present, before further flight, replacing the M/R mast and the oil hose;

• If there is oil present, within 30 hours TIS of inspecting for the presence of oil, removing the hose and determining if there is blockage in the hose, first using an air gun and then using cable ties or a piece of wire. If there is blockage in the hose, before further flight, replacing the M/R mast and the oil hose; and

• If there is oil present and there is no blockage, before further flight, permanently marking the hose with an “X” following the P/N.

This AD also prohibits installing an oil hose, P/N 704A34-412-015, on any helicopter unless it has been inspected as required by this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350BB helicopters, this AD does not as that model is not type certificated in the U.S.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,246 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting the oil hose for oil and obstruction and marking the hose will require about one hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a cost of $105,910 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, replacing the M/R mast and oil hose will require 16 hours and required parts will cost $29,940 for a cost per helicopter of $31,300.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because some of the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 30 hours TIS, a potentially short period of time for helicopters primarily used for air ambulance operations.

Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-02-02 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19155; Docket No. FAA-2017-1201; Product Identifier 2017-SW-068-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a main rotor (M/R) mast jet oil lubrication hose (oil hose) part number (P/N) 704A34-412-015 (manufacturing P/N 4T13), except those marked with an X following the P/N, installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a blocked oil hose. This condition could result in failure of the direct oil jet to lubricate the M/R mast upper bearing, degradation of the M/R mast bearings, loss of M/R transmission function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective February 12, 2018.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

(1) Within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS), disconnect the upper end of the oil hose and inspect the inside of the hose for oil.

(i) If there is no oil inside the hose, before further flight, replace the M/R mast and oil hose.

(ii) If there is oil inside the hose, within 30 hours TIS, remove the oil hose and blow air through the oil hose using an air gun.

(A) If no air flows through the oil hose, before further flight, replace the M/R mast and oil hose.

(B) If air does flow through the oil hose, inspect the oil hose for any blockage by inserting two cable ties or a semi-rigid piece of wire with a diameter of 2 to 2.3 millimeters (mm) a minimum of 100 mm into each end of the oil hose.

(1) If there is any blockage, before further flight, replace the M/R mast and oil hose.

(2) If there is no blockage, re-identify the oil hose by vibro-etching the letter “X” after the P/N.

(2) Do not install an oil hose P/N 704A34-412-015 on any helicopter unless it has been inspected as required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(g) Additional Information

(1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 62.00.20, No. 62.00.23, No. 62.00.36, No. 62.00.39, and No. 62A015, all Revision 1 and dated May 19, 2017, which are co-published as one document and not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0089, dated May 17, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-1201.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230 Main Gearbox Mast.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 8, 2018. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01196 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31176; Amdt. No. 3784] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 26, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420)Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2018. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of The Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 1-Mar-18 CO Greeley Greeley-Weld County 7/0041 12/27/17 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35, Amdt 3. 1-Mar-18 MS Gulfport Gulfport-Biloxi Intl 7/0124 1/3/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2. 1-Mar-18 MS Gulfport Gulfport-Biloxi Intl 7/0125 1/3/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2. 1-Mar-18 OR Ontario Ontario Muni 7/0542 1/9/18 NDB RWY 33, Amdt 6. 1-Mar-18 ME Eastport Eastport Muni 7/0546 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1. 1-Mar-18 CO Greeley Greeley-Weld County 7/0992 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1. 1-Mar-18 SC Allendale Allendale County 7/1027 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A. 1-Mar-18 OH Lima Lima Allen County 7/1170 1/9/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 2A. 1-Mar-18 CA Van Nuys Van Nuys 7/1257 1/9/18 VOR-B, Amdt 4. 1-Mar-18 MN Hinckley Field Of Dreams 7/1674 1/9/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig. 1-Mar-18 MN Hinckley Field Of Dreams 7/1678 1/9/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig. 1-Mar-18 OH Upper Sandusky Wyandot County 7/1878 12/27/17 VOR-A, Amdt 3C. 1-Mar-18 OK Muskogee Davis Field 7/2894 12/27/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 1-Mar-18 TX La Grange Fayette Rgnl Air Center 7/3087 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 2A. 1-Mar-18 TX La Grange Fayette Rgnl Air Center 7/3088 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2A. 1-Mar-18 CO Greeley Greeley-Weld County 7/4146 12/27/17 VOR-A, Amdt 10. 1-Mar-18 CO Greeley Greeley-Weld County 7/4186 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1. 1-Mar-18 CO Greeley Greeley-Weld County 7/4191 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1. 1-Mar-18 CO Greeley Greeley-Weld County 7/4201 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1A. 1-Mar-18 MN Thief River Falls Thief River Falls Rgnl 7/5050 12/29/17 VOR RWY 31, Amdt 8C. 1-Mar-18 MS Oxford University-Oxford 7/6703 1/9/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1. 1-Mar-18 OH Cambridge Cambridge Muni 7/6941 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-C. 1-Mar-18 OH Cambridge Cambridge Muni 7/6942 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-C. 1-Mar-18 MN Mc Gregor Isedor Iverson 7/8234 12/27/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig. 1-Mar-18 NY New York Laguardia 7/9835 12/27/17 RVAV (GPS) Y RWY 22, Amdt 2C. 1-Mar-18 NY New York Laguardia 7/9836 12/27/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 22, ILS RWY 22 (SA CAT I AND II), Amdt 21.
[FR Doc. 2018-01171 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31173; Amdt. No. 3782] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 26, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420)Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject 1-Feb-18 OK Muskogee Davis Field 7/2896 12/5/17 This NOTAM, published in TL 18-03, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 1-Feb-18 MO Monroe City Cpt Ben Smith Airfield—Monroe City 7/1136 12/12/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 1-Feb-18 AZ Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam 7/2172 12/18/17 VOR RWY 21, Amdt 1. 1-Feb-18 WI Eau Claire Chippewa Valley Rgnl 7/3746 12/18/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2. 1-Feb-18 OR Salem Mcnary Fld 7/4017 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 3A. 1-Feb-18 OR Salem Mcnary Fld 7/4040 12/6/17 ILS OR LOC Z RWY 31, Amdt 31. 1-Feb-18 OR Portland Portland-Hillsboro 7/4123 12/4/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 13R, Amdt 10. 1-Feb-18 IN Columbus Columbus Muni 7/4145 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig. 1-Feb-18 OR Portland Portland-Hillsboro 7/4157 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 13R, Amdt 2A. 1-Feb-18 IN Columbus Columbus Muni 7/4158 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 IN Columbus Columbus Muni 7/4162 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig. 1-Feb-18 IN Columbus Columbus Muni 7/4163 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1A. 1-Feb-18 IN Columbus Columbus Muni 7/4167 12/4/17 ILS RWY 23, Amdt 7A. 1-Feb-18 CA Watsonville Watsonville Muni 7/4244 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 CA Watsonville Watsonville Muni 7/4245 12/6/17 LOC RWY 2, Amdt 4A. 1-Feb-18 CA Watsonville Watsonville Muni 7/4246 12/6/17 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1. 1-Feb-18 NH Manchester Manchester 7/4318 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 OH Wilmington Wilmington Air Park 7/4346 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 NV Winnemucca Winnemucca Muni 7/4640 12/5/17 VOR RWY 14, Orig-B. 1-Feb-18 NH Manchester Manchester 7/4754 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35, Amdt 1B. 1-Feb-18 OH New Philadelphia Harry Clever Field 7/5388 12/6/17 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3. 1-Feb-18 IA Greenfield Greenfield Muni 7/5443 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 IA Greenfield Greenfield Muni 7/5444 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 IA Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Muni 7/6720 12/4/17 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1. 1-Feb-18 IA Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Muni 7/6730 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 IA Belle Plaine Belle Plaine Muni 7/6731 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 CA Brawley Brawley Muni 7/6988 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig. 1-Feb-18 CA Brawley Brawley Muni 7/7004 12/4/17 VOR/DME-B, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 AR Clarksville Clarksville Muni 7/7891 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 AR Clarksville Clarksville Muni 7/7892 12/4/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig. 1-Feb-18 IA Cedar Rapids The Eastern Iowa 7/8225 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 MI Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Muni 7/8372 12/5/17 VOR RWY 24, Amdt 13E. 1-Feb-18 MI Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Muni 7/8375 12/5/17 VOR RWY 6, Amdt 13D. 1-Feb-18 MI Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Muni 7/8393 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2B. 1-Feb-18 MI Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Muni 7/8402 12/5/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2C. 1-Feb-18 NY Elmira/Corning Elmira/Corning Rgnl 7/8405 12/18/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 19A. 1-Feb-18 TX Caldwell Caldwell Muni 7/8699 12/18/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 TX Harlingen Valley Intl 7/8832 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17R, Amdt 2A. 1-Feb-18 OH Wilmington Wilmington Air Park 7/8843 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Orig-A. 1-Feb-18 NE Hebron Hebron Muni 7/8923 12/28/17 GPS RWY 12, Orig-D. 1-Feb-18 NE Hebron Hebron Muni 7/8928 12/4/17 GPS RWY 30, Orig-C. 1-Feb-18 OH Columbus Rickenbacker Intl 7/9089 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23L, Orig. 1-Feb-18 OH Akron Akron-Canton Rgnl 7/9156 12/5/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 19, Amdt 8. 1-Feb-18 WA Moses Lake Grant Co Intl 7/9177 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 32R, Amdt 3A. 1-Feb-18 IA Sioux City Sioux Gateway/Col Bud Day Field 7/9203 12/6/17 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-E. 1-Feb-18 IN Gary Gary/Chicago Intl 7/9337 12/6/17 ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 6. 1-Feb-18 WA Everett Snohomish County (Paine Fld) 7/9637 12/6/17 ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 16R, Amdt 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-01169 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31175; Amdt. No. 3783] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 26, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2018. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 1 March 2018 Salmon, ID, Lemhi County, RNAV (GPS)-D, Amdt 2 Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field, RNAV (GPS) W RWY 27, Amdt 1B Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field, RNAV (GPS) X RWY 27, Amdt 1D Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 27, Orig-C Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 27, Orig-C Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 1E Effective 29 March 2018 Cordova, AK, Merle K (Mudhole) Smith, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 11C Cordova, AK, Merle K (Mudhole) Smith, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 4L, Amdt 26A Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, Amdt 2D Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, Orig-D Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 9 Bishop, CA, Bishop, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4A Oxnard, CA, Oxnard, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, Amdt 13C Santa Barbara, CA, Santa Barbara Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8A Cortez, CO, Cortez Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-A Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, ILS RWY 1 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 1 (CAT II), Amdt 41C Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Y RWY 19, Amdt 1A Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1A Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, RNAV (RNP) RWY 19, Amdt 2B Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8A Middletown, DE, Summit, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Apalachicola, FL, Apalachicola Rgnl-Cleve Randolph Field, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 2C Perry, FL, Perry-Foley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A St Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, St Pete-Clearwater Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3B Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 19L, ILS RWY 19L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 19L (CAT II), Amdt 40D St Marys, GA, St Marys, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig, CANCELED St Marys, GA, St Marys, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1, CANCELED St Marys, GA, St Marys, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1A, CANCELED St Marys, GA, St Marys, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4, CANCELED Valdosta, GA, Valdosta Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1C Valdosta, GA, Valdosta Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2B Decorah, IA, Decorah Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-B Decorah, IA, Decorah Muni, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 3E Ottumwa, IA, Ottumwa Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-B Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Orig-D Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13L, Orig-E Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31R, Orig-E Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 4R, Amdt 3D Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 15, Amdt 30D, CANCELED Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, ILS RWY 28L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 28L (CAT II), ILS RWY 28L (CAT III), Orig-A Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 10R, Orig-B Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS PRM Y RWY 10R, (CLOSE PARALLEL), Orig-B Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 10R, ILS Z RWY 10R (SA CAT I), ILS Z RWY 10R (CAT II), ILS Z RWY 10R (CAT III), Orig-A Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2E, CANCELED Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 20C Chicago/Lake in The Hills, IL, Lake in The Hills, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-A Chicago/Romeoville, IL, Lewis University, LOC RWY 2, Amdt 1A Chicago/Romeoville, IL, Lewis University, LOC/DME RWY 9, Amdt 1A Chicago/Romeoville, IL, Lewis University, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2A Chicago/West Chicago, IL, Dupage, ILS OR LOC RWY 2L, Amdt 2E Chicago/West Chicago, IL, Dupage, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 8D Chicago/West Chicago, IL, Dupage, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2L, Orig-E Chicago/West Chicago, IL, Dupage, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20L, Orig-D Galesburg, IL, Galesburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-B Galesburg, IL, Galesburg Muni, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 7B Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 31C Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 2B Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1D Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1C Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1D Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1C Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23R, ILS RWY 23R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 23R (SA CAT II), Amdt 6 Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Orig-A, SUSPENDED Cambridge, MD, Cambridge-Dorchester Rgnl, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 8, CANCELED Cambridge, MD, Cambridge-Dorchester Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1 Alma, MI, Gratiot Community, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 1B Battle Creek, MI, W K Kellogg, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23R, Amdt 1C Charlotte, MI, Fitch H Beach, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1A Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, VOR RWY 33, Amdt 28B, CANCELED East Tawas, MI, Iosco County, VOR-A, Amdt 8, CANCELED Gladwin, MI, Gladwin Zettel Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-B Grand Rapids, MI, Gerald R Ford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26L, Amdt 1C Ionia, MI, Ionia County, VOR-A, Amdt 1, CANCELED Mason, MI, Mason Jewett Field, VOR-A, Amdt 5, CANCELED Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 2B Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, ILS RWY 9 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 9 (CAT II), Amdt 22B Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 10C Moorhead, MN, Moorhead Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 12L, ILS RWY 12L (CAT II), ILS RWY 12L (CAT III), Amdt 6C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 12R, Amdt 22C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30L, Amdt 12C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30R, ILS RWY 30R (CAT II), ILS RWY 30R (CAT III), Amdt 11A St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 12L, Amdt 2D St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 12R, Amdt 1D St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30L, Amdt 1D St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30R, Amdt 2A St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12L, Orig-C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12R, Orig-C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30L, Orig-C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30R, Orig-C Shelby, MT, Shelby, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 7A, CANCELED Gwinner, ND, Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 4A Belen, NM, Alexander Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Hudson, NY, Columbia County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1 Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 8 Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 10A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, Amdt 10A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24R, Amdt 10A Chandler, OK, Chandler Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Perkasie, PA, Pennridge, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1C Aiken, SC, Aiken Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Aberdeen, SD, Aberdeen Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1 Fort Hood/Killeen, TX, Robert Gray AAF, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 6A, CANCELED Fort Hood/Killeen, TX, Robert Gray AAF, RADAR-2, Orig-A Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, ILS RWY 16L (CAT II), ILS RWY 16L (CAT III), Amdt 7 Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, ILS OR LOC RWY 34R, Amdt 7 Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16L, Amdt 2 Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34R, Amdt 3 Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Abingdon, VA, Virginia Highlands, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 6, CANCELED Richlands, VA, Tazewell County, LOC/DME RWY 25, Amdt 1B Boscobel, WI, Boscobel, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-A Mineral Point, WI, Iowa County, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 6A, CANCELED Bluefield, WV, Mercer County, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 15C Bluefield, WV, Mercer County, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 5C Pineville, WV, Kee Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-C Pineville, WV, Kee Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-C
[FR Doc. 2018-01170 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31172; Amdt. No. 3781] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 26, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC on December 29, 2017. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 1 February 2018 Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7L, ILS RWY 7L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 7L (SA CAT II), Amdt 3C Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7R, ILS RWY 7R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 7R (CAT II), ILS RWY 7R (CAT III), Amdt 3C Kipnuk, AK, Kipnuk, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Kipnuk, AK, Kipnuk, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Kipnuk, AK, Kipnuk, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, ILS RWY 16L (SA CAT II), Amdt 4A Santa Ana, CA, John Wayne Airport-Orange County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 20R, Amdt 3A Santa Monica, CA, Santa Monica Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1 Santa Monica, CA, Santa Monica Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 1 Santa Monica, CA, Santa Monica Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 3, Amdt 1 Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, GPS RWY 22, Orig, CANCELED Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 1 Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, NDB RWY 22, Orig Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, NDB OR GPS-A, Orig-A, CANCELED Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, NDB OR GPS-B, Amdt 4A, CANCELED Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1 Weno Island, FM, Chuuk Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig Milledgeville, GA, Baldwin County, NDB RWY 28, Amdt 4 Milledgeville, GA, Baldwin County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 2 Milledgeville, GA, Baldwin County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 2 Paducah, KY, Barkley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1 Bedford, MA, Laurence G Hanscom Fld, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, Amdt 26B Bedford, MA, Laurence G Hanscom Fld, ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 8 Bedford, MA, Laurence G Hanscom Fld, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 10 Saginaw, MI, MBS Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 St Louis, MO, Creve Coeur, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1A St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30R, Amdt 2 St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30R, ILS RWY 30R (CAT II), ILS RWY 30R (CAT III), Amdt 11 West Yellowstone, MT, Yellowstone, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-A Raeford, NC, P K Airpark, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Raeford, NC, P K Airpark, VOR-A, Amdt 4 Ellendale, ND, Ellendale Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig Ellendale, ND, Ellendale Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Reno, NV, Reno/Stead, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Orig-A Reno, NV, Reno/Stead, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1B Galion, OH, Galion Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B Galion, OH, Galion Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-B Lawton, OK, Lawton-Fort Sill Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 8 Lawton, OK, Lawton-Fort Sill Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A Lawton, OK, Lawton-Fort Sill Rgnl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 21 Oklahoma City, OK, Will Rogers World, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 35R (CAT II), Amdt 10D Grants Pass, OR, Grants Pass, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10L, ILS RWY 10L (CAT II), ILS RWY 10L (CAT III), Amdt 26 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, ILS RWY 10R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 10R (CAT II), ILS RWY 10R (CAT III), Amdt 10G Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, Amdt 11 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, ILS RWY 28R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 28R (CAT II), Amdt 10 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 14 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10L, Amdt 4 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 3C Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10C, Amdt 4B Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10R, Amdt 3C Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28C, Amdt 4B Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28L, Amdt 5 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 5 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 32, Amdt 6 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10C, Orig-D Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10R, Orig-D Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28C, Orig-D Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28L, Amdt 1 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28R, Amdt 1 Pittsburg, PA, Pittsburg Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32, Amdt 2 North Kingstown, RI, Quonset State, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 11 North Kingstown, RI, Quonset State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1 North Kingstown, RI, Quonset State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1 North Kingstown, RI, Quonset State, VOR RWY 34, Amdt 3 North Kingstown, RI, Quonset State, VOR-A, Amdt 6 Onida, SD, Onida Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig Onida, SD, Onida Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig Onida, SD, Onida Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Mc Minnville, TN, Warren County Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 36L, Amdt 3 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36L, ILS RWY 36L (SA CAT II), Amdt 4 Kenedy, TX, Karnes County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Salt Lake City, UT, South Valley Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Pullman/Moscow, WA, Pullman/Moscow Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4A Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 19R, Amdt 12B Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, LOC RWY 25L, Amdt 5B Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1L, Amdt 1D Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1R, Orig-A Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7L, Orig-B Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-B Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19L, Orig-B Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R, Amdt 2B Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 7R, Amdt 1D Milwaukee, WI, General Mitchell Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 25L, Amdt 1D

RESCINDED: On December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60862), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31170, Amdt No. 3779, to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.29 and 97.37. The following entries for Buckland, AK, and Philadelphia, PA, effective February 1, 2018, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Buckland, AK, Buckland, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 9R, ILS Z RWY 9R (SA CAT I), ILS Z RWY 9R (CAT II), ILS Z RWY 9R (CAT III), Amdt 10A
[FR Doc. 2018-01167 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 170804727-7727-01] RIN 0694-AH43 Addition of Certain Entities; Removal of Certain Entities; and Revisions of Entries on the Entity List AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding twenty-one persons under twenty-three entries to the Entity List. The twenty-one persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These twenty-one persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of Bulgaria, China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). In addition, this rule amends the EAR by removing three entities from the Entity List. This rule removes one entity listed under the destination of Taiwan and two entities listed under the destination of the U.A.E. from the Entity List. All three of the removals are the results of requests for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entry and a review of information provided in the removal requests. Finally, this final rule modifies two existing entries on the Entity List. This rule modifies one entry under China and one entry under Pakistan to provide additional or modified addresses and/or names for these persons.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 26, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Entity List (supplement No. 4 to part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register document adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

ERC Entity List Decisions Additions to the Entity List

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add twenty-one persons under twenty-three entries to the Entity List. These twenty-one persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The twenty-three entries added to the Entity List consist of four entities located in Bulgaria, one entity located in China, two entities located in Kazakhstan, two entities located in Russia, two entities located in Syria, and twelve entities located in the U.A.E. There are twenty-three entries for the twenty-one persons because two of the persons are listed in multiple locations, resulting in two additional entries.

The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these twenty-one persons under twenty-three entries to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

The ERC determined that eleven entities, Advanced Aerospace Industries, Deira General Marketing, DGL Clearing and Forwarding LLC, Emitech Middle East FZC, Eurotech DMCC, Foremost International FZE, Jazirah Aviation Club, Modest Marketing LLC, Pearltrainer FZE, Sky Gulf Consultancy and Researches LLC, and Stealth Telecom FZC, all located in the U.A.E., be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that these entities have been involved in the procurement of items for an entity on the Entity List, in circumvention of the licensing requirements set forth in § 744.11 of the EAR.

The ERC determined that one entity, Chengdu Spaceon Technology Co. Ltd., located in China, be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that this entity has been involved in transshipping items to a person on the Entity List in China for an unauthorized military end-use.

The ERC determined that seven entities, Adib Zeno, Ammar Almounajed, Iskren Georgiev, Lyubka Hristova, Mihaela Nenova, Rizk Ali, and Zhelyaz Andreev, located in the destinations of Bulgaria, Syria and the U.A.E., be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that these entities unlawfully conspired to procure and divert controlled aircraft parts to Syrian Arab Airlines, an entity on the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) Specially-Designated Nationals list (SDN).

The ERC determined that two entities, Abtronics and Timofey Telegin, located in the destinations of Russia and Kazakhstan, be added to the Entity List on the basis of their procurement of U.S.-origin items for activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, these entities procured U.S.-origin items and transferred them to entities of the Russian military and parties on the Entity List without the necessary licenses.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these twenty-one persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.

For the twenty-one persons added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR, and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases and help exporters, reexporters and transferors to better identify persons on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following twenty-one persons under twenty-three entries to the Entity List:

Bulgaria

(1) Iskren Georgiev, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria;

(2) Lyubka Hristova, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria;

(3) Mihaela Nenova, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Mihaela Nenova-Muhy. 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria; and

(4) Zhelyaz Andreev, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria.

China

(1) Chengdu Spaceon Technology Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Tianao Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 88 Xinye Road, West High Tech Zone, Chengdu, China; and Spaceon Building, No. 1 Wulidun Road, Chadianzi, Chengdu, China; and Tianao Building, No. 1 Wulidun Road, Chadianzi, Chengdu, China. Kazakhstan

(1) Abtronics, 21 Solodovnikova Street, Almaty 50046, Kazakhstan (See alternate address under Russia); and

(2) Timofey Telegin, 21 Solodovnikova Street, Almaty 50046, Kazakhstan (See alternate address under Russia).

Russia

(1) Abtronics, 18, bld. 2, Frontovyh Brigad Street, Yekaterinburg 620017, Russia; and 15 A Kulakova Prospect, Office 307, Stavropol 355044, Russia; and 12/11 Bld 12, 1-st Bukhvostova Street, Moscow 107076, Russia (See alternate address under Kazakhstan); and

(2) Timofey Telegin, 18, bld. 2, Frontovyh Brigad Street, Yekaterinburg 620017, Russia; and 15 A Kulakova Prospect, Office 307, Stavropol 355044, Russia; and 12/11 Bld 12, 1-st Bukhvostova Street, Moscow 107076, Russia (See alternate address under Kazakhstan).

Syria

(1) Adib Zeno, Damascus International Airport, Damascus Airport Motorway, Damascus, Syria; and

(2) Rizk Ali, Damascus International Airport, Damascus Airport Motorway, Damascus, Syria.

United Arab Emirates

(1) Advanced Aerospace Industries, Industrial City of Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.;

(2) Ammar Almounajed, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Ammar al-Mounjad. Warehouse No. 1017, Old Agent Bldg., Dubai Air Cargo Village, Dubai, U.A.E.;

(3) Deira General Marketing, P.O. Box 26412, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.;

(4) DGL Clearing and Forwarding LLC, P.O. Box 94353, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.;

(5) Emitech Middle East FZC, P.O. Box 513364, SAIF Zone, Sharjah, U.A.E.;

(6) Eurotech DMCC, Office No. 3404, HDS Tower, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 643650, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, Dubai U.A.E.;

(7) Foremost International FZE, P.O. Box 123833, Q4-163, SAIF Zone, Sharjah, U.A.E.;

(8) Jazirah Aviation Club, Al Jazirah, Al Hamra, Ras al Khaimah, U.A.E.;

(9) Modest Marketing LLC, P.O. Box 51436, Dubai, U.A.E.;

(10) Pearltrainer FZE, P.O. Box 32707, Sharjah, U.A.E.;

(11) Sky Gulf Consultancy and Researches LLC, P.O. Box 25298, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.; and

(12) Stealth Telecom FZC, P.O. Box 7755, Sharjah, U.A.E.

Removals From the Entity List

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following three entities from the Entity List on the basis of removal requests received by BIS, as follows: Hosoda Taiwan Limited, located in Taiwan; and Euro Vision Technology LLC and Noun Nasreddine, both located in the U.A.E. The entry for Hosoda Taiwan Limited was added to the Entity List on April 23, 2015 (see 80 FR 22640). The entries for Euro Vision Technology LLC and Noun Nasreddine were added to the Entity List on February 23, 2016 (see 81 FR 8829).

The ERC decided to remove these three entities based on information received by BIS pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR and further review conducted by the ERC.

This final rule implements the decision to remove the following one entity located in Taiwan, and two entities located in the U.A.E. from the Entity List:

Taiwan

(1) Hosoda Taiwan Limited, 3F-1 No. 52, SEC 2, Chung Shan N. Road, Taipei 104 Taiwan.

United Arab Emirates

(1) Euro Vision Techonology LLC, #701 Damas Tower, 702 Al Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 701 Attar Tower, Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and City Tower, Al Maktoum St. Office No. 701, Dubai U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 40595, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Warehouse No. 8, Plot No. 238, Rashidiya, Dubai, U.A.E.; and

(2) Noun Nasreddine, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—N.A. Nasreddine. #701 Damas Tower, 702 Al Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 701 Attar Tower, Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and City Tower, Al Maktoum St. Office No. 701, Dubai U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 40595, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Warehouse No. 8, Plot No. 238, Rashidiya, Dubai, U.A.E.

The removal of the entities referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these entities from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally, this removal does not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

Modifications to the Entity List

This final rule implements decisions of the ERC to modify two existing entries on the Entity List. Under the destination of China, the ERC made a determination to revise one entry by removing one address and adding one additional address to the entry for Beijing Aeronautical Manufacturing Technology Research Institute. Under the destination of Pakistan, the ERC made a determination to revise one entry by adding an alias and two additional addresses to the entry for Advanced Engineering Research Organization (AERO).

This final rule makes the following modifications to two entries on the Entity List:

China

(1) Beijing Aeronautical Manufacturing Technology Research Institute, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—BAMTRI; and —Aviation Industry Corporation of China's (AVIC) Institute 625.

No. 1 East Military Village, North Baliqiao Station, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China; and

No. 1 Dongjunzhuang, Baliqiaobei, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.

Pakistan

(1) Advanced Engineering Research Organization (AERO), a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Integrated Solutions. Lub Thatoo Hazara Road, The Taxila District, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; and 53/2 26th Street, near Badara Commercial Area Phase 5 Extension, DHA Karachi, Pakistan; and House No. 334, Street No. 102, Sector I-8/4, near Pakeeza Market, Islamabad, Pakistan. Export Administration Act of 1979

Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. For the twenty-one persons under twenty-three entries added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation and a 30-day delay in effective date are inapplicable, because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implementation of this rule is necessary to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List, which could create an incentive for these persons to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, including taking steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule is published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule.

5. For the three entities removed from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.

In determining whether to grant a request for removal from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed entities or persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These three removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales to the entities removed by this rule because the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removal pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicants to receive U.S. exports immediately because the applicants already have received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).

Removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, supplement No. 5, and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these entities. In addition, the information included in the removal request is information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule is a substantive rule which relieves a restriction. This rule's removal of three entities under three entries from the Entity List removes requirements (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation on use of license exceptions) on these three entities being removed from the Entity List. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other person for these removals from the Entity List. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule.

6. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment for the two modifications included in this rule because, as described above, they are impracticable and are contrary to the public interest. In addition, these two changes are limited to providing additional or modified addresses and/or an alias for these entities on the Entity List, which will assist the public in more easily identifying these listed entities on the Entity List.

7. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, 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.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of January 13, 2017, 82 FR 6165 (January 18, 2017); Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017); Notice of September 18, 2017, 82 FR 43825 (September 19, 2017); Notice of November 6, 2017, 82 FR 51971 (November 8, 2017).

2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended: a. By adding in alphabetical order, a heading for Bulgaria and four Bulgarian entities; b. Under China: i. By revising one Chinese entity; and ii. By adding, in alphabetical order, one Chinese entity; c. By adding, in alphabetical order, under Kazakhstan, two Kazakhstani entities; d. By revising, under Pakistan, one Pakistani entity; e. By adding, in alphabetical order, under Russia, two Russian entities; f. By adding, in alphabetical order, under Syria, two Syrian entities; g. By removing under Taiwan, one Taiwanese entity, “Hosoda Taiwan Limited, 3F-1 No. 52, SEC 2, Chung Shan N. Road, Taipei 104 Taiwan”; and h. Under United Arab Emirates: i. By removing two Emirati entities, “Euro Vision Technology LLC, #701 Damas Tower, 702 Al Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 701 Attar Tower, Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and City Tower, Al Maktoum St. Office No. 701, Dubai U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 40595, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Warehouse No. 8, Plot No. 238, Rashidiya, Dubai, U.A.E.;” and Noun Nasreddine, a.k.a., the following one alias: -N.A. Nasreddine. #701 Damas Tower, 702 Al Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and 701 Attar Tower, Maktoum St, Dubai, U.A.E.; and City Tower, Al Maktoum St. Office No. 701, Dubai U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 40595, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Warehouse No. 8, Plot No. 238, Rashidiya, Dubai, U.A.E.”; and ii. By adding, in alphabetical order, twelve Emirati entities.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License
  • requirement
  • License
  • review policy
  • Federal Register citation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * BULGARIA Iskren Georgiev, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. Lyubka Hristova, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. Mihaela Nenova, a.k.a., the following one alias: Mihaela Nenova-Muhy, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. Zhelyaz Andreev, 51 Aleksandar Malinov Blvd., Sofia 1712, Bulgaria. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         *         * CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF  *         *         *         *         *         * Beijing Aeronautical Manufacturing Technology Research Institute, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —BAMTRI; and
  • —Aviation Industry Corporation of China's (AVIC) Institute 625.
  • No. 1 East Military Village, North Baliqiao Station, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China; and No. 1 Dongjunzhuang, Baliqiaobei, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of approval for EAR99; case-by-case review for all items on the CCL 79 FR 24566, 5/1/14. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Chengdu Spaceon Technology Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Tianao Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • No. 88 Xinye Road, West High Tech Zone, Chengdu, China; and Spaceon Building, No. 1 Wulidun Road, Chadianzi, Chengdu, China; and Tianao Building, No. 1 Wulidun Road, Chadianzi, Chengdu, China.
  • For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
       *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * KAZAKHSTAN Abtronics, 21 Solodovnikova Street, Almaty 50046, Kazakhstan (See alternate address under Russia). For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.    *         *         *         *         *         * Timofey Telegin, 21 Solodovnikova Street, Almaty 50046, Kazakhstan (See alternate address under Russia) For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         *         * PAKISTAN  *         *         *         *         *         * Advanced Engineering Research Organization (AERO), a.k.a., the following one alias: For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 79 FR 56003, 9/18/14. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. —Integrated Solutions. Lub Thatoo Hazara Road, The Taxila District, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; and 53/2 26th Street, near Badara Commercial Area Phase 5 Extension, DHA Karachi, Pakistan; and House No. 334, Street No. 102, Sector I-8/4, near Pakeeza Market, Islamabad, Pakistan.    *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * RUSSIA  *         *         *         *         *         * Abtronics, 18, bld. 2, Frontovyh Brigad Street, Yekaterinburg 620017, Russia; and 15 A Kulakova Prospect, Office 307, Stavropol 355044, Russia; and 12/11 Bld 12, 1-st Bukhvostova Street, Moscow 107076, Russia (See alternate address under Kazakhstan) For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.  *         *         *         *         *         * Timofey Telegin, 18, bld. 2, Frontovyh Brigad Street, Yekaterinburg 620017, Russia; and 15 A Kulakova Prospect, Office 307, Stavropol 355044, Russia; and 12/11 Bld 12, 1-st Bukhvostova Street, Moscow 107076, Russia (See alternate address under Kazakhstan) For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.  *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * SYRIA Adib Zeno, Damascus International Airport, Damascus Airport Motorway, Damascus, Syria For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Rizk Ali, Damascus International Airport, Damascus Airport Motorway, Damascus, Syria. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.  *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         * UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  *         *         *         *         *         *          Advanced Aerospace Industries, Industrial City of Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Ammar Almounajed, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Ammar al-Mounjad.
  • Warehouse No. 1017, Old Agent Bldg., Dubai Air Cargo Village, Dubai, U.A.E.
  • For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Deira General Marketing, P.O. Box 26412, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. DGL Clearing and Forwarding LLC, P.O. Box 94353, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Emitech Middle East FZC, P.O. Box 513364, SAIF Zone, Sharjah, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Eurotech DMCC, Office No. 3404, HDS Tower, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, U.A.E.; and P.O. Box 643650, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, Dubai U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Foremost International FZE, P.O. Box 123833, Q4-163, SAIF Zone, Sharjah, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Jazirah Aviation Club,
  • Al Jazirah, Al Hamra, Ras al Khaimah, U.A.E.
  • For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Modest Marketing LLC,
  • P.O. Box 51436, Dubai, U.A.E.
  • For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Pearltrainer FZE,
  • P.O. Box 32707, Sharjah, U.A.E.
  • For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Sky Gulf Consultancy and Researches LLC, P.O. Box 25298, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18. *         *         *         *         *         * Stealth Telecom FZC,
  • P.O. Box 7755, Sharjah, U.A.E.
  • For all items subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER], 1/26/18.
     *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: January 12, 2018. Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01332 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2016-0017] 16 CFR Part 1308 Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 30, 2017, the Commission issued a final rule determining that certain plastics and additives would not contain the phthalates that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) prohibits from use in children's toys and child care articles. Subsequently, the Commission issued a final rule that removes some phthalates from the statutory prohibition and adds others. This direct final rule revises the determinations rule to cover the phthalates that the phthalates final rule prohibits from use in children's toys and child care articles.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective on April 25, 2018, unless we receive significant adverse comment by February 26, 2018. If we receive timely significant adverse comment, we will publish notification in the Federal Register, withdrawing this direct final rule before its effective date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2016-0017, by any of the following methods:

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov.

    Submit written submissions in the following way:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this document. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background Statutory Prohibitions

    Section 108 of the CPSIA established permanent and interim prohibitions that prohibited the use of certain phthalates in children's toys and child care articles. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(a) and (b). The CPSIA also directed the Commission to issue a rule deciding whether to make the interim prohibitions permanent and whether to prohibit other children's products containing any phthalates. Id. 2057c(b)(3). In the following discussion, we refer to rulemaking under section 108 of the CPSIA as the phthalates rule or rulemaking.

    Third Party Testing and Burden Reduction

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). For children's products, certification must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Id. Public Law 112-28 (August 12, 2011) amended the CPSA and directed the CPSC to seek comment on “opportunities to reduce the cost of third party testing requirements consistent with assuring compliance with any applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation.” Public Law 112-28 also authorized the Commission to issue new or revised third party testing regulations if the Commission determines “that such regulations will reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and regulations.” 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B).

    The Commission may issue determinations that specific materials do not contain prohibited substances such as lead or phthalates. Based on such a determination, the specified material would not require third party testing for compliance with the applicable mandatory prohibition.

    The determinations only relieve the manufacturer's obligation to have the specific materials tested by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Children's products must still comply with the applicable substantive requirements, regardless of any relief from third party testing requirements. Additionally, the manufacturer must issue a certificate stating that the product complies with CPSC requirements.

    Determinations Rule

    On August 30, 2017, the Commission published a final rule determining that specified plastics and additives would not contain materials subject to the prohibition of children's toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates. 82 FR 41163. The rule created a new part 1308 for “Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics.” The rule determined that the specified plastics and accompanying additives do not contain the statutorily prohibited phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP, DnOP) in concentrations above 0.1 percent, and thus, are not required to be third party tested to assure compliance with section 108 of the CPSIA. At the time the Commission issued the determinations rule, the Commission had issued a proposed rule in the phthalates rulemaking, but had not yet promulgated a final rule in that proceeding. The preambles of both the NPR and final rule for the determinations noted that the research providing the basis for the determinations covering the six phthalates subject to the statutory prohibition, applied as well to the additional four phthalates the Commission had proposed prohibiting in children's toys and child care articles in the phthalates NPR. In the preamble to the final determinations rule, the Commission indicated that when the Commission published the final phthalates rule, the Commission would amend the determinations rule to reflect the phthalates regulated in the phthalates final rule. 82 FR 41163, at 41164.

    Phthalates Final Rule

    On October 27, 2017, the Commission published the final phthalates rule in the Federal Register. 82 FR 49938. The phthalates rule, which is codified at 16 CFR part 1307, makes permanent the interim statutory prohibition on diisononyl phthalate (DINP) and expands that restriction to prohibit all children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DINP. The phthalates rule also lifts the interim prohibitions on children's toys that can be placed in a child's mouth and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP) or diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP). Additionally, the phthalates rule also prohibits children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), and dicyclohexly phthalate (DCHP). The permanent prohibitions on children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent on the use of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) in children's toys and child care articles in section 108 of the CPSIA are unchanged by the phthalate rule. The phthalates rule takes effect on April 25, 2018.

    B. Revisions to 16 CFR Part 1308

    This direct final rule amends 16 CFR 1308.1 to cover the phthalates listed in the phthalates final rule discussed in section A of the preamble. This action will bring the determinations into alignment with the phthalates final rule so that firms will be able to use the determinations to reduce testing burdens related to the final phthalates rule as they have with the statutory prohibitions. The amendment does not make any other changes to the determinations rule.

    C. Direct Final Rule Process

    The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. 553. The direct final rule process is an appropriate way to satisfy this requirement in certain circumstances. In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. See 60 FR 43108 (August 18, 1995). The Commission concludes that a direct final rule is appropriate here. The Commission is taking the limited action of amending the determinations rule at 16 CFR part 1308 to reflect the phthalates that are restricted under the Commission's phthalates rule. The previous determinations rule explained that the reports supporting the determinations regarding the phthalates that are covered by the statutory prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA also apply to the phthalates covered by the Commission's phthalates rule. We also note that this determination rule is separate from the Commission's phthalates rulemaking which was concluded with the Commission's issuance of a final rule on October 27, 2017. Because this document merely updates the regulated phthalates in the determinations rule, the Commission believes this rulemaking is a non-controversial matter which is not likely to generate comments. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the direct final rule process is appropriate.

    Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will take effect on April 25, 2018. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why revising the list of regulated phthalates would be inappropriate. We note that comments on either the underlying determinations or phthalates final rules are not considered significant adverse comments because the only change this rule makes is to revise the list of covered phthalates.

    Should the Commission receive significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. CPSC conducted a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for the determinations rule that the Commission issued in August 2017. The FRFA found that “the impact of the determinations on small businesses would be to reduce the burden of third party testing for phthalate content and would be expected to be entirely beneficial.” 82 FR 41171. As explained above, this direct final rule takes the limited action of revising the list of covered phthalates to bring the determinations rule into line with the phthalates rule so that companies will be able to use the determinations to reduce third party testing under the phthalates rule as they have under the statutory prohibitions.

    E. Effective Date

    As discussed in section C of this preamble, this is a direct final rule. Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will take effect on April 25, 2018.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1308

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

    Accordingly, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 1308 as follows:

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

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

    2. Revise § 1308.1 to read as follows:
    § 1308.1 Prohibited children's toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates and testing requirements.

    Section 108(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) permanently prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). In accordance with section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA, 16 CFR part 1307 prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), or dicyclohexly phthalate (DCHP) is prohibited. Materials used in children's toys and child care articles subject to section 108(a) of the CPSIA and 16 CFR part 1307 must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), unless listed in § 1308.2.

    Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01451 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Veterans' Employment and Training Service 20 CFR Part 1011 RIN 1293-AA21 Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans (HIRE Vets) Medallion Program; Agency Information Collection Activities; OMB Approvals AGENCY:

    Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Labor.

    ACTION:

    OMB approval of information collections under Paperwork Reduction Act.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collections associated with the Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans (HIRE Vets) Medallion Program rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    DATES:

    On January 9, 2018, OMB approved the information collection request (ICR) the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) submitted to implement the HIRE Vets Medallion Program Rule published on November 13, 2017 (82 FR 52186) and an associated program demonstration for 2018. Employers seeking recognition under the HIRE Vets Medallion Program Demonstration may submit applications once the Program Demonstration begins on or about January 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Randall Smith, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1325, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, email: [email protected], telephone: (202) 693-4700 or TTY (877) 889-5627 (these are not toll-free numbers).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randall Smith, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1325, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, email: [email protected], telephone: (202) 693-4700 or TTY (877) 889-5627 (these are not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require a Federal agency to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and to solicit public comments on the information collections. The PRA also provides that an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. See 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi). OMB has approved the HIRE Vets Medallion Program information collections under control number 1293-0015.

    In accordance with the PRA, VETS solicited comments on the HIRE Vets Medallion Program information collections as they were proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published August 18, 2017 (82 FR 39371). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). The Department also submitted a contemporaneous request for OMB review of the proposed HIRE Vets Medallion Program information collections, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). On October 25, 2017, OMB issued a notice of action instructing the Department of Labor (DOL) to resubmit the information collections after taking public comments on the NPRM into consideration. See OMB ICR Reference Number 201707-1293-001. VETS published the HIRE Vets Medallion Program Final Rule in the Federal Register on November 13, 2017 (82 FR 52186). On the same day, DOL submitted the ICR that OMB requested, and OMB approved the ICR on January 9, 2018. See OMB ICR Reference Number 201710-1293-002. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related documents published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2017 (82 FR 39371), and November 13, 2017 (82 FR 52186).

    The information collection and its annual burden on the public may be summarized as follows:

    Agency: DOL-VETS.

    Title of Collection: Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing (HIRE) American Military Veterans (HIRE Vets) Medallion Program.

    OMB Control Number: 1293-0015.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 34,184.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 58,556 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $1,045,486.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    OMB Control Number: 1293-0015.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3506(c).

    Dated: January 18, 2018. J.S. Shellenberger, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01262 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 600 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-7007] RIN 0910-AH49 Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is amending the general biologics regulations relating to time of inspection requirements and also removing duties of inspector requirements. FDA is taking this action to remove outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections. This action is part of FDA's implementation of Executive Orders (E.O.s) 13771 and 13777. Under these E.O.s, FDA is comprehensively reviewing existing regulations to identify opportunities for repeal, replacement, or modification that will result in meaningful burden reduction while allowing the Agency to achieve our public health mission and fulfill statutory obligations. The Agency is issuing these amendments directly as a final rule because we believe they are noncontroversial and FDA anticipates no significant adverse comments.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 11, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on the direct final rule or its companion proposed rule by April 11, 2018. If FDA receives no significant adverse comments within the specified comment period, the Agency intends to publish a document confirming the effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period on this direct final rule ends. If timely significant adverse comments are received, the Agency will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule within 30 days after the comment period on this direct final rule ends.

    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 April 11, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 11, 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-2017-N-7007 for “Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products.” 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:

    Melissa Segal, 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. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Direct Final Rule

    FDA is issuing this direct final rule to amend the general biologics regulations relating to time of inspection requirements and to remove duties of inspector requirements. FDA is taking this action to remove outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections.

    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Direct Final Rule

    This direct final rule revises the time of inspection requirements contained in § 600.21 (21 CFR 600.21) and also removes the duties of inspector requirements contained in § 600.22 (21 CFR 600.22). These changes to the biological product regulations eliminate outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections. Revision and removal of these regulations does not change the biological product establishment inspection requirements and duties of an investigator requirements that apply under sections 704 and 510(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 374 and 360(h)) and section 351(c) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(c)).

    C. Legal Authority

    FDA is taking this action under the biological product provisions of the PHS Act, and the drugs and general administrative provisions of the FD&C Act, including sections 704 and 510(h) of the FD&C Act and section 351(c) of the PHS Act.

    D. Costs and Benefits

    Because this direct final rule does not impose any additional regulatory burdens, this regulation is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

    II. Direct Final Rulemaking

    In the document entitled “Guidance for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures,” announced and provided in the Federal Register of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466), FDA described its procedures on when and how the Agency will employ direct final rulemaking. The guidance may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125166.htm. We have determined that this rule is appropriate for direct final rulemaking because we believe that it includes only noncontroversial amendments and we anticipate no significant adverse comments. Consistent with our procedures on direct final rulemaking, FDA is also publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a companion proposed rule proposing to amend the general biological products regulations by removing certain time of inspection requirements and the duties of inspector requirements. The companion proposed rule provides a procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized in the event that the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any significant adverse comments. The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with the companion proposed rule. Any comments received in response to the companion proposed rule will be considered as comments regarding the direct final rule.

    We are providing a comment period on the direct final rule of 75 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If we receive any significant adverse comments, we intend to withdraw this direct final rule before its effective date by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants terminating a direct final rulemaking, we will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process.

    Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a regulation change in addition to those in the direct final rule would not be considered a significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to a part of this rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of the significant adverse comment.

    If any significant adverse comments are received during the comment period, FDA will publish, before the effective date of this direct final rule, a notice of significant adverse comment and withdraw the direct final rule. If we withdraw the direct final rule, any comments received will be applied to the proposed rule and will be considered in developing a final rule using the usual notice-and-comment procedure.

    If FDA receives no significant adverse comments during the specified comment period, FDA intends to publish a document confirming the effective date within 30 days after the comment period ends.

    III. Background

    On February 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (82 FR 12285, March 1, 2017). One of the provisions in the Executive Order requires Agencies to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. As one step in implementing the Executive Order, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register of September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42492) entitled “Review of Existing Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Regulatory and Information Collection Requirements.” In that notice, FDA announced that it was conducting a review of existing regulations to determine, in part, whether they can be made more effective in light of current public health needs and to take advantage of, and support, advances in innovation that have occurred since those regulations took effect. As part of this initiative, FDA is updating outdated regulations as specified in this rule.

    FDA's general biological products regulations in part 600 (21 CFR part 600) are intended to help ensure the safety, purity, and potency of biological products administered to humans. The revision and removal of certain general biological products regulations are designed to eliminate outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments and provide flexibility without diminishing public health protections.

    A. Section 600.21

    The authority for FDA to conduct establishment inspections is included in both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act. Specifically, section 704 of the FD&C Act and section 351(c) of the PHS Act authorize the Agency to inspect establishments that manufacture biological products. Before July 9, 2012—the date the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144) was signed into law—section 510(h) of the FD&C Act further provided, among other things, that drug and device establishments registered with FDA must be inspected at least once in the 2-year period beginning with the date of registration and at least once in every successive 2-year period thereafter. Section 510(h) of the FD&C Act applies to biological product establishments because all biological products are subject to regulation under the drug or device provisions of the FD&C Act (in addition to the biological product provisions of the PHS Act). Since 1983, FDA's biological product regulation at § 600.21 has also included a biennial inspection requirement (“[A]n inspection of each licensed establishment and its additional location(s) shall be made at least once every 2 years”); this was consistent with the pre-FDASIA biennial inspection requirement in section 510(h) of the FD&C Act.

    With the enactment of FDASIA, however, the biennial inspection requirement for drug establishments in section 510(h) of the FD&C Act was replaced with a requirement that FDA inspect drug establishments in accordance with a risk-based schedule established by FDA. Accordingly, for biological product establishments that are registered as drug establishments under section 510(h), the requirement in § 600.21 regarding the frequency of inspections is no longer consistent with the FD&C Act and is outdated (e.g., the risk-based inspection schedule for drug establishments may result in scheduling inspections at intervals of greater than 2 years for certain biological product establishments). For this reason, and to provide for greater flexibility in general with respect to determining the frequency of biological product establishment inspections under the authority provided in the FD&C Act and the PHS Act, FDA is revising § 600.21 to remove the biennial inspection requirement for biological product establishments that are registered as drug establishments and for those that are registered as device establishments.

    In addition, § 600.21 includes provisions concerning inspectional notice and the timing of pre-licensure reinspections of biological product establishments. These provisions are outdated and unnecessary. Inspectional notice is addressed in the Agency's practices for inspections in its Standard Operating Procedures and Policies and in the Investigations Operations Manual (IOM). With respect to the timing of a reinspection of a biological product establishment following the denial of a biologics license application, the general biologics licensing provision at 21 CFR 601.4, which was issued subsequent to § 600.21, sets forth the administrative procedures following the denial of a license; accordingly, the specific provision in § 600.21 regarding timing of a reinspection following denial of a license is unnecessary. Therefore, FDA is removing these provisions.

    B. Section 600.22

    Current § 600.22 requires specific duties of an FDA inspector. These existing codified requirements are unnecessary because they are duplicative of statutory requirements that apply to biological product inspections under section 704 of the FD&C Act. Specifically, the inspection requirements in section 704 of the FD&C Act encompass all of the requirements outlined in § 600.22. Thus, we are removing § 600.22(a) through (h).

    The removal of these regulations, however, does not change the establishment inspection requirements and duties of an investigator requirements specified in sections 704 and 510(h) of the FD&C Act, section 351(c) of the PHS Act, or the procedures described in the IOM. Additionally, it does not change the established process for risk-based inspection planning and work planning.

    IV. Highlights of the Direct Final Rule

    FDA is revising the general biologics regulations by revising time of inspection requirements contained in § 600.21 and also by removing the duties of inspector requirements contained in § 600.22. These changes are designed to remove the existing codified requirements that are outdated and to accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for biological product establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections. FDA is issuing these revisions directly as a final rule because the Agency believes they include only noncontroversial amendments and FDA anticipates no significant adverse comments.

    V. Legal Authority

    FDA is issuing this rule under the biological products provisions of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264, and 300aa-25) and the drugs and general administrative provisions of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356c, 356e, 360, 360i, 371, 374, and 379k-l). Under these provisions of the PHS Act and the FD&C Act, we have the authority to issue and enforce regulations designed to ensure that biological products are safe, pure, and potent, and prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease.

    VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of the direct final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” We believe that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the direct final rule does not impose any additional regulatory burdens, we certify that this direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This direct final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

    This rule is being issued to amend the general biologics regulations by removing time of inspection requirements and the duties of inspector requirements. This action is being taken to remove outdated requirements, accommodate new approaches, and provide flexibility without diminishing public health protections. Because this rulemaking would remove regulations to be consistent with updated practice and does not impose any additional regulatory burdens, this rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

    VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.31(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    VIII. Federalism

    We have analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects 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. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This direct final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 600

    Biologics, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 600 is amended as follows:

    PART 600—BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356c, 356e, 360, 360i, 371, 374, 379k-l; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264, 300aa-25.

    § 600.21 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 600.21 by removing the last three sentences.
    § 600.22 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve § 600.22. Dated: January 23, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01468 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 60 [Docket No. FR-6077-I-01] Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Delay of the Revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; delay of effective and compliance dates; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 19, 2017, HUD and other federal departments and agencies published a final rule which revised the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (2018 Requirements). Most of the 2018 Requirements were scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, with a general compliance date of January 19, 2018. On January 22, 2018, the Federal departments and agencies that adopted the 2018 Requirements published an interim final rule (“the interagency interim final rule”) that delays the effective date and general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements for six months, to July 19, 2018. The purpose of the delay is to provide additional time to regulated entities for the preparations necessary to implement the 2018 requirements. Due to statutory prepublication requirements applicable to HUD rules, HUD was unable to be a signatory to the interagency interim final rule. Through this interim final rule, HUD adopts the interagency interim final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective date: February 26, 2018.

    Comment due date: March 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket ID number HHS-OPHS-2017-0001 by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov):

    ○ Enter the following link into your web browser's address bar: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HHS-OPHS-2017-0001.

    ○ Click the blue “Comment Now!” button in the upper right-hand corner and follow the instructions on how to submit a comment.

    ○ Alternatively, you can enter the docket ID number into the “search” box on the main page of the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov) to find the electronic docket.

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions] to: Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., OHRP, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • Comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry L. Steffen, Policy Development Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8114, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone 202-402-5926. (This is not a toll-free number.) Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY number by calling the Federal Relay Service number at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On January 19, 2017, HUD and other Federal departments and agencies that are subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects published a final rule amending that policy (82 FR 7149) (2018 Requirements). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the lead agency on this rulemaking. The 2018 Requirements were scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, with a general compliance date of January 19, 2018 (with the exception of the revisions to the cooperative research provision at 24 CFR 60.114(b), for which the compliance date is January 20, 2020). After publication of the 2018 Requirements, representatives of the regulated community expressed concern regarding their ability to implement all of the 2018 Requirements by the scheduled general compliance date and some asked for a delay. The HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections recommended in August 2017 that the required implementation of the 2018 Requirements be delayed.

    On January 22, 2018, at 83 FR 2885, the Federal departments and agencies published an interagency interim final rule, which delays the effective date and general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements for six months, to July 19, 2018. The interagency interim final rule also solicits public comment on whether changes to the rule are justified. Due to statutory prepublication requirements applicable to HUD rules, HUD was unable to be a signatory to the interagency interim final rule. Specifically, section 7(o) the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(o)) provides for 15-day Congressional prepublication review of certain HUD rules. Rather than potentially delay publication of the interagency rule to comply with this HUD-specific requirement, HUD has opted to issue this interim final rule. HUD's rule adopts the interagency interim final rule and also solicits public comment on whether changes to the effective and compliance dates are justified. Please see the interagency interim final rule for further background and explanation.

    II. Justification for Interim-Final Rulemaking

    HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advanced notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (see 24 CFR 10.1). For the following reasons, HUD has determined that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effectiveness of this rule in order to solicit prior public comments.

    The rule does not substantively alter the requirements of the 2018 Requirements, which were issued following advance notice and an opportunity for comment. Rather, the sole purpose of this rulemaking is to delay the effective date and general compliance date of those requirements. As noted, the delay is being issued in response to concerns from the public. HUD is issuing this rule separately from the other agencies due to statutory prepublication review requirements. A delay for prior public procedure would result in HUD program participants being subject to a unique set of regulatory requirements different than those applicable for other, substantially identical, Federal activities. Participants in programs administered by HUD as well as those of other agencies would be required with two different set of regulations for undertaking similar activities.

    Given the burdensome outcomes resulting from a delay, the non-substantive nature of the rule, and the fact that the rule responds to concerns raised by the public, HUD believes that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without prior public comment. HUD, however, recognizes the value of public comment in the development of its regulations. HUD has, therefore, issued these regulations on an interim basis and has provided the public with a 60-day comment period. HUD welcomes comments on the regulatory amendments made by this interim rule. The public comments will be addressed in the final rule.

    III. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” For further discussion of the significance of this interim final rule and its anticipated benefits and costs, see the interagency interim final rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This interim final rule does not impose any additional information collection burden under the PRA. If finalized, this interim final rule will not contain any information collection activities beyond the information collection already approved by OMB under control number 0990-0260.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This interim final rule does not impose a regulatory burden for regulated small entities because it delays the effective date and the general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements, allowing the status quo to be retained for the period of delay. Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Environmental Impact

    This interim final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This interim final rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

    Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and is not required by statute, or (2) preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This interim final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

    Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs was issued on January 30, 2017. For further discussion of E.O. 13771, please see the interagency interim final rule.

    List of Subjects for 24 CFR Part 60

    Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends part 60 of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 60—PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b) and 3535(d).

    2. Amend § 60.101 by revising paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 60.101 To what does this policy apply?

    (l) * * *

    (3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 60.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before July 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after July 19, 2018 may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.

    (4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 60.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after July 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.

    Dated: January 11, 2018. Todd M. Richardson, Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01497 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 25 CFR Part 517 RIN 3141-AA21 Freedom of Information Act Procedures AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends the procedures followed by the National Indian Gaming Commission when processing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, as amended. These amendments update certain Commission information, conform to changes made in the Freedom of Information Act Improvements Act of 2016, and streamline how the Commission processes its Freedom of Information Act requests.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on February 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tana Fitzpatrick at (202) 632-7003 or by fax (202) 632-7066 (these numbers are not toll free).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Contents of Final Rule III. Responses to Comments IV. Regulatory Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act C. Takings D. Civil Justice Reform E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. National Environmental Policy Act H. Tribal Consultation I. Background

    In 1966, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Later, on October 17, 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which established the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission). On August 23, 1993, the Commission adopted FOIA procedures and, on April 19, 2006, subsequently amended its FOIA procedures. Since that time, the United States Congress has amended the FOIA twice, and the Commission has changed the location of its headquarters office and streamlined the way it processes its FOIA requests.

    On October 17, 2017, the Commission published a proposed rule (82 FR 48205) that proposed changes to the Commission's regulations and requested public comments for 30 days. This final rule implements the proposed changes and responds to public comments received on the proposed rule. This rule updates the location of the Commission's headquarters, conforms to changes made in the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016, and streamlines how the Commission processes its FOIA requests.

    II. Contents of Final Rule

    This rule finalizes updates in each section of the Commission's FOIA regulations. Under 25 CFR 517.1, General provisions, the Commission incorporates revisions providing that requests for information under this part may also be simultaneously processed under the Privacy Act regulation under 25 CFR part 515. Additionally, under 25 CFR 517.2, Public reading room, the Commission updates its headquarters to its new address.

    This rule also updates certain definitions under 25 CFR 517.3 to conform to case law and statutory requirements. The Commission made the following changes:

    (1) Changed definition of `record.' The Commission revised the definition because the present definition of `record' is too narrow based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of what constitutes a `record' under FOIA;

    (2) Expanded `representatives of the news media' to comport with the FOIA's definition;

    (3) Updated `confidential commercial information' to be consistent with case law;

    (4) Updated `direct costs' to incorporate statutory and OMB guidelines;

    In addition, this rule updates the definition of `duplication' to incorporate newer technologies and references to electronic records.

    Section 517.4, Requirements for making requests, includes additional updates, as well. Section 517.4 updates include providing an electronic means of submitting FOIA requests and clarifying language for NIGC's search criteria. Finally, this section notifies requesters of their right to obtain the records they seek in their preferred form or format.

    This rule updates section 517.5, Responsibility for responding to requests, by amending the standard the Commission uses when referring or consulting with another federal agency by providing the Commission's FOIA Office with broader discretion. In addition, the present § 517.6(d) is now § 517.5(c), which has been updated to remove a provision that suggests that requesters are required to make advance payments for FOIA requests. This rule also includes a modified provision under the new § 517.5(d), presently located under 25 CFR 517.6(e), which now defines `adverse determination' and requires the Commission to inform the requester of dispute resolution services. Finally, § 517.5 now includes a new provision for `coordination', which is designed to protect the personal privacy interests of certain individuals.

    This rule incorporates several updates to § 517.6, Timing of responses to requests. First, the Commission must now notify the requester of his or her right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services, which is now consistent with the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016. Second, this section expands methods of communication to include electronic methods. Finally, this rule removes duplicative timeline information in this section and inserts requirements for expedited review that codify provisions under FOIA.

    Section 517.7, Confidential commercial information, is updated to include the requirements of Executive Order 12600, Pre-disclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information. Exec. Order No. 12600, 52 FR 23781 (June 23, 1987). Section 517.7(a) is revised to state that when a submitter provides confidential commercial information to the Commission, rather than solely the FOIA Officer, then the FOIA Officer shall provide notice of a FOIA request or administrative appeal encompassing the confidential commercial information if required to be disclosed under FOIA. Section 517.7(b) is amended to remove `substantial harm' as there is more than one standard for allowing information to be withheld under FOIA. Additionally, § 517.7(c) is amended to allow the FOIA Officer additional flexibility in determining whether to notify a submitter, particularly on whether or not other FOIA exemptions may apply to their request.

    Section 517.8, Appeals, is updated to lengthen the amount of time a requester has to appeal an adverse agency determination from 30 working days after notification to 90 days after the date of the adverse determination. In addition, this section is amended to include a notice of the availability of dispute resolution services. Section 517.8 also updates the methods by which the Commission accepts appeals by including an option for electronic submission of appeals. Finally, this section now includes the addition of an exhaustion requirement, stating that requesters must generally seek an administrative appeal prior to filing a complaint in federal court.

    Last, § 517.9, Fees, is updated to conform to requirements of the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016 that restrict when agencies are permitted to charge fees when statutory timelines are not met. This section is also updated to include references to additional methods of duplication and a statement that the requester may select the form or format in which a record is provided. Section 517.9(b)(2) is amended to include a reference to 16% as the appropriate percentage for benefits, on top of the employee's basic pay, being charged for search fees. Additionally, § 517.9(b)(2)(ii) is amended by removing language stating that the Commission is not required to alter or develop programming to conduct computer searches. Finally, this section now includes a reference to the Commission's debt collection regulations.

    III. Responses to Comments A. Removal of the Definition `Record'

    Commenters on the proposed rule expressed concern for the removal of the definition `record.' Commenters noted that the term `record' is used throughout the regulation and `describes what is being sought in a FOIA request.' Commenters also stated that federal agencies have the discretion to adopt their own definitions of `record,' including the Department of Interior. Finally, commenters suggest the Commission re-insert its present definition of `record,' as it adequately describes the scope of materials that can be requested under FOIA.

    Response: The Commission agrees with commenters that a definition of “record” is needed, but disagrees that the current definition should be maintained because the present definition does not adequately encompass the Supreme Court's interpretation of `record' for the purposes of FOIA requests. The current regulation uses the definition of record from the Federal Records Act (FRA), 44 U.S.C.A. section 3301. However, under Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144-145 (1989), the Supreme Court construed agency records requested under FOIA to be (1) either created or obtained by an agency and (2) under agency control at the time the request is made. Although the Supreme Court's definition overlaps with the FRA definition, Congress created the FRA for record management purposes and not for purposes of providing the public information on public policy, as is the purpose of FOIA. Thus, if information is under the control of the agency, it will be subject to the FOIA regardless of whether it would otherwise be `appropriate for preservation.' See Department of Justice, FOIA Update Vol. II, No. 1: What is an “Agency Record?” (January 1, 1980).

    Rather than maintain the current definition, then, the Commission adopts a definition of `record' that reflects these considerations.

    IV. Regulatory Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Commission certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The factual basis for this certification is as follows: This rule is procedural in nature and will not impose substantive requirements that would be considered impacts within the scope of the Act.

    B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is exempt from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    C. Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    D. Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

    E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which the Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) would be required.

    G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    H. Tribal Consultation

    The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy published July 15, 2013. The NIGC's consultation policy specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation, rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian Tribe's formal relationship with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. The changes proposed in this final rule do not fall into any of those categories. Many of the changes are required by law and those that are not are being done to improve our FOIA process, which affects the public in general. Accordingly, the Commission did not consult with tribal governments on these changes. The Commission, though, requested and welcomed any and all tribal comments to the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 517

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission revises 25 CFR part 517 to read as follows: PART 517—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCEDURES Sec. 517.1 General provisions. 517.2 Public reading room. 517.3 Definitions. 517.4 Requirements for making requests. 517.5 Responsibility for responding to requests. 517.6 Timing of responses to requests. 517.7 Confidential commercial information. 517.8 Appeals. 517.9 Fees. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552

    § 517.1 General provisions.

    This part contains the regulations the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) follows in implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. These regulations provide procedures by which you may obtain access to records compiled, created, and maintained by the Commission, along with procedures the Commission must follow in response to such requests for records. These regulations should be read together with the FOIA, which provides additional information about access to records maintained by the Commission. Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), are processed in accordance with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations, 25 CFR part 515, as well as under this part.

    § 517.2 Public reading room.

    Records that are required to be maintained by the Commission shall be available for public inspection and copying at 90 K Street NE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002. Reading room records created on or after November 1, 1996, shall be made available electronically via the Commission's website.

    § 517.3 Definitions.

    (a) Commercial use requester means a requester seeking information for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of himself or the person on whose behalf the request is made, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. In determining whether a request properly belongs in this category, the FOIA Officer shall determine the use to which the requester will put the documents requested. Where the FOIA Officer has reasonable cause to doubt the use to which the requester will put the records sought, or where that use is not clear from the request itself, the FOIA Officer shall contact the requester for additional clarification before assigning the request to a specific category.

    (b) Confidential commercial information means records or information provided to the government by a submitter that arguably contains material exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.

    (c) Direct costs mean those expenditures by the Commission actually incurred in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in response to the FOIA request. Direct costs include the salary of the employee or employees performing the work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the employee plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners. Direct costs do not include overhead expenses, such as the cost of space, heating, or lighting of the facility in which the records are stored.

    (d) Duplication refers to the process of making a copy of a record, or the information contained in it, necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Such copies can take the form of, among other things, paper copy, microfilm, audio-visual materials, or electronic records (e.g., compact discs or USB flash drives). The copies provided shall be in a form that is reasonably usable by the requester.

    (e) Educational institution refers to a preschool, a public or private elementary school, an institute of undergraduate higher education, an institute of graduate higher education, an institute of professional education, or an institute of vocational education which operates a program of scholarly research. To qualify for this category, the requester must show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use, but are sought to further scholarly research.

    (f) Freedom of Information Act Officer means the person designated by the Chairman to administer the FOIA.

    (g) Non-commercial scientific institution refers to an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis as that term is used in paragraph (a) of this section, and which is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. To qualify for this category, the requester must show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use, but are sought to further scholarly research.

    (h) Record means an agency record that is either created or obtained by an agency and is under agency control at the time of the FOIA request.

    (i) Representative of the news media means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast “news” to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate “news” and make their products available for purchase by or free distribution to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the internet. For a “freelance journalist” to be regarded as working for a news organization, the requester must demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that organization, such as a publication contract. Absent such showing, the requester may provide documentation establishing the requester's past publication record. To qualify for this category, the requester must not be seeking the requested records for a commercial use. However, a request for records supporting a news-dissemination function shall not be considered to be for a commercial use.

    (j) Requester means any person, including an individual, Indian tribe, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than a Federal agency, that requests access to records in the possession of the Commission.

    (k) Review means the process of examining a record in response to a FOIA request to determine if any portion of that record may be withheld under one or more of the FOIA Exemptions. It also includes processing any record for disclosure, for example, redacting information that is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Review time includes time spent considering any formal objection to disclosure made by a business submitter under § 517.7(c). Review time does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the use of FOIA Exemptions.

    (l) Search refers to the time spent looking for material that is responsive to a request, including page-by-page or line-by-line identification of material within a document and also includes reasonable efforts to locate and retrieve information from records maintained in electronic form or format. The FOIA Officer shall ensure that searches are conducted in the most efficient and least expensive manner reasonably possible.

    (m) Submitter means any person or entity who provides information directly or indirectly to the Commission. The term includes, but is not limited to, corporations, Indian tribal governments, state governments and foreign governments.

    (n) Working day means a Federal workday that does not include Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays.

    § 517.4 Requirements for making requests.

    (a) How to make a FOIA request. Requests for records made pursuant to the FOIA must be in writing. Requests may be mailed, dropped off in person, or faxed to (202) 632-7066 (not a toll free number). Requests that are dropped off in person should be made at 90 K Street NE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002 during the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 noon and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Requests that are mailed should be sent to NIGC Attn: FOIA Officer, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240. Requests may also be sent via electronic mail addressed to [email protected] or submitted through the Commission's website.

    (b) First person requests for records. If the requester is making a request for records about himself/herself, the requester must provide verification of identity. Verification requirements are described in 25 CFR 515.3.

    (c) Requests for records about another individual. If the requester is making a request for records about another individual, the requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual, a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (for example, a copy of the death certificate or a copy of the obituary).

    (d) Description of records sought. Requests for records shall describe the records requested with as much specificity as possible to enable Commission employees to locate the information requested with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, the request should describe the subject matter of the records sought, the time periods in which the records were generated, and any tribe or tribal gaming facility with which they were associated. Before submitting a request, requesters may contact the Commission's FOIA contact or FOIA Public Liaison to discuss the records being sought and receive assistance describing the records. If after receiving a request the FOIA Officer determines that it does not reasonably describe the records sought, the FOIA Officer must inform the requester of what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. Requesters who are attempting to reformulate or modify such a request may discuss their request with the Commission's FOIA contact or FOIA Public Liaison. If a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the agency's response to the request may be delayed.

    (e) Agreement to pay fees. Requests shall also include a statement indicating the maximum amount of fees the requester is willing to pay to obtain the requested information, or a request for a waiver or reduction of fees. If the requester is requesting a waiver or reduction of fees the requester must include justification for such waiver or reduction (see § 517.9(c) for more information). If the request for a fee waiver is denied, the requester will be notified of this decision and advised that fees associated with the processing of the request will be assessed. The requester must send an acknowledgment to the FOIA Officer indicating his/her willingness to pay the fees. Absent such acknowledgment within the specified time frame, the request will be considered incomplete, no further work shall be done, and the request will be administratively closed.

    (f) Form or format of records requested. Requesters may specify their preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records sought. The Commission will accommodate such requests where the record is readily reproducible in that form or format.

    (g) Types of records not available. The FOIA does not require the Commission to:

    (1) Compile or create records solely for the purpose of satisfying a request for records;

    (2) Provide records not yet in existence, even if such records may be expected to come into existence at some future time; or

    (3) Restore records destroyed or otherwise disposed of, except that the FOIA Officer must notify the requester that the requested records have been destroyed or disposed.

    § 517.5 Responsibility for responding to requests.

    (a) In general. In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Commission ordinarily will include only records in its possession as of the date it begins its search for records. If any other date is used, the FOIA Officer shall inform the requester of that date.

    (b) Authority to grant or deny requests. The FOIA Officer shall make initial determinations either to grant or deny in whole or in part a request for records.

    (c) Granting of requests. When the FOIA Officer determines that the requested records shall be made available, the FOIA Officer shall notify the requester in writing and provide copies of the requested records in whole or in part. Records disclosed in part shall be marked or annotated to show the exemption applied to the withheld information and the amount of information withheld unless to do so would harm the interest protected by an applicable exemption. If a requested record contains exempted material along with nonexempt material, all reasonable segregable material shall be disclosed.

    (d) Adverse Determinations. If the FOIA Officer makes an adverse determination denying a request in any respect, it must notify the requester of that adverse determination in writing. Adverse determinations include decisions that: The requested record is exempt from release, in whole or in part; the request does not reasonably describe the records sought; the information requested is not a record subject to the FOIA; the requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or the requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester; denials involving fees or fee waiver matters; and denials of requests for expedited processing.

    (e) Content of adverse determination. Any adverse determination issued by the FOIA Officer must include:

    (1) A brief statement of the reasons for the adverse determination, including any FOIA exemption applied by the agency in denying access to a record unless to do so would harm the interest protected by an applicable exemption;

    (2) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;

    (3) A statement that the adverse determination may be appealed under § 517.8 of this part and a description of the appeal requirements; and

    (4) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.

    (f) Consultation, referral, and coordination. When reviewing records located in response to a request, the FOIA Officer will determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. As to any record determined to be better suited for review by another Federal Government agency, the FOIA Officer must proceed in one of the following ways.

    (1) Consultation. When records originating with the Commission contain information of interest to another Federal Government agency, the FOIA Officer should typically consult with that other entity prior to making a release determination.

    (2) Referral. (i) When the FOIA Officer believes that a different Federal Government agency is best able to determine whether to disclose the record, the FOIA Officer should typically refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to that agency. Ordinarily, the agency that originated the record is presumed to be the best agency to make the disclosure determination. If the Commission and another Federal Government agency jointly agree that the agency processing the request is in the best position to respond regarding the record, then the record may be handled as a consultation.

    (ii) Whenever the FOIA Officer refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, he or she must document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral.

    (iii) After the FOIA Officer refers a record to another Federal Government agency, the agency receiving the referral shall make a disclosure determination and respond directly to the requester. The referral of a record is not an adverse determination and no appeal rights accrue to the requester by this act.

    (3) Coordination. The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy interests. For example, if the FOIA Officer in responding to a request for records on a living third party locates records originating with a criminal law enforcement agency, and if the existence of that law enforcement interest in the third party was not publicly known, then to disclose that law enforcement interest could cause an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the third party. In such instances, in order to avoid harm to an interest protected by an applicable exemption, the FOIA Officer should coordinate with the originating agency to obtain its views on whether the record may be disclosed. The FOIA Officer should then convey the determination as to whether the record will be released to the requester.

    § 517.6 Timing of responses to requests.

    (a) In general. The FOIA Officer ordinarily shall respond to requests according to their order of receipt. All statutory and regulatory timelines will commence on the date that the request is received by the Commission's Headquarters FOIA Office that is designated to receive requests in § 517.4(a). In instances of requests misdirected to Commission field offices, the response time will commence on the date that the request is received by the Commission's Headquarters FOIA Office, but in any event no later than 10 working days after the request is first received by any Commission office.

    (b) Multitrack processing. (1) The FOIA Officer may use multi-track processing in responding to requests. Multi-track processing means placing simple requests requiring rather limited review in one processing track and placing more voluminous and complex requests in one or more other tracks. Requests in either track are processed on a first-in/first-out basis.

    (2) The FOIA Officer may provide requesters in its slower track(s) with an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests in order to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of faster track(s). The FOIA Officer will do so either by contacting the requester by letter, telephone, electronic mail, or facsimile whichever is more efficient in each case. When providing a requester with the opportunity to limit the scope of their request, the FOIA Officer shall also advise the requester of the availability of the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison to aid in the resolution of any dispute arising between the requester and the Commission as well as the requester's right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.

    (c) Initial determinations. (1) The FOIA Officer shall make an initial determination regarding access to the requested information and notify the requester within twenty (20) working days after receipt of the request. This 20 day period may be extended if unusual circumstances arise. If an extension is necessary, the FOIA Officer shall promptly notify the requester of the extension, briefly stating the reasons for the extension, and estimating when the FOIA Officer will respond. Unusual circumstances warranting extension are:

    (i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;

    (ii) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of records which are demanded in a single request; or

    (iii) The need for consultation with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, which consultation shall be conducted with all practicable speed.

    (2) If the FOIA Officer decides that an initial determination cannot be reached within the time limits specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FOIA Officer shall notify the requester of the reasons for the delay and include an estimate of when a determination will be made. The requester will then have the opportunity to modify the request or arrange for an alternative time frame for completion of the request. To assist in this process, the FOIA Officer shall advise the requester of the availability of the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison to aid in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the Commission, and notify the requester of his or her right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.

    (3) If no initial determination has been made at the end of the 20 day period provided for in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, including any extension, the requester may appeal the action to the FOIA Appeals Officer.

    (d) Expedited processing of request. (1) A requester may make a request for expedited processing at any time.

    (2) When a request for expedited processing is received, the FOIA Officer must determine whether to grant the request for expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days of its receipt. Requests will receive expedited processing if one of the following compelling needs is met:

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

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

    (3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. As a matter of administrative discretion, the FOIA Officer may waive the formal certification requirement.

    (4) Administrative appeals of denials of expedited processing will be given expeditious consideration. If the denial of expedited processing is upheld by the FOIA Appeals Officer, that decision is immediately subject to judicial review in the appropriate Federal district court.

    § 517.7 Confidential commercial information.

    (a) Notice to submitters. The FOIA Officer shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide a submitter who provides confidential commercial information to the Commission, with prompt notice of a FOIA request or administrative appeal encompassing the confidential commercial information if the Commission may be required to disclose the information under the FOIA. Such notice shall either describe the exact nature of the information requested or provide copies of the records or portions thereof containing the confidential commercial information. The FOIA Officer shall also notify the requester that notice and opportunity to object has been given to the submitter.

    (b) Where notice is required. Notice shall be given to a submitter when:

    (1) The information has been designated by the submitter as confidential commercial information protected from disclosure. Submitters of confidential commercial information shall use good faith efforts to designate, either at the time of submission or a reasonable time thereafter, those portions of their submissions they deem protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. Such designation shall be deemed to have expired ten years after the date of submission, unless the requester provides reasonable justification for a designation period of greater duration; or

    (2) The FOIA Officer has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.

    (c) Where notice is discretionary. If the FOIA Officer has reason to believe that information submitted to the Commission may be protected from disclosure under any other exemption of the FOIA, the FOIA Officer may, in his or her discretion, provide the submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to the release of that information.

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

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

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

    (g) Exceptions to the notice requirements under this section. The notice requirements under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply if:

    (1) The FOIA Officer determines that the information should not be disclosed pursuant to Exemption 4 and/or any other exemption of the FOIA;

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

    (3) Disclosure of the information is required by law (other than the FOIA);

    (4) The information requested is not designated by the submitter as exempt from disclosure in accordance with this part, when the submitter had the opportunity to do so at the time of submission of the information or within a reasonable time thereafter, unless the agency has substantial reason to believe that disclosure of the information would result in competitive harm; or

    (5) The designation made by the submitter in accordance with this part appears obviously frivolous. When the FOIA Officer determines that a submitter was frivolous in designating information as confidential, the FOIA Officer must provide the submitter with written notice of any final administrative disclosure determination within a reasonable number of days prior to the specified disclosure date, but no opportunity to object to disclosure will be offered.

    § 517.8 Appeals.

    (a) Right of appeal. The requester has the right to appeal to the FOIA Appeals Officer any adverse determination.

    (b) Notice of Appeal—(1) Time for appeal. To be considered timely, an appeal must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, no later than ninety (90) calendar days after the date of the response or after the time limit for response by the FOIA Officer has expired. Prior to submitting an appeal any outstanding fees associated with FOIA requests must be paid in full.

    (2) Form of appeal. An appeal shall be initiated by filing a written notice of appeal. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of the original request and adverse determination. To expedite the appellate process and give the requester an opportunity to present his/her arguments, the notice should contain a brief statement of the reasons why the requester believes the adverse determination to have been in error. Requesters may submit appeals by mail, facsimile, or electronically. Appeals sent by mail shall be addressed to the National Indian Gaming Commission, Attn: FOIA Appeals Officer, 1849 C Street NW, Mailstop #1621, Washington, DC 20240. Appeals may also be submitted via electronic mail at [email protected] or through the NIGC's website. To facilitate handling, the requester should mark both the appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”

    (c) Final agency determinations. The FOIA Appeals Officer shall issue a final written determination, stating the basis for its decision, within twenty (20) working days after receipt of a notice of appeal. If the determination is to provide access to the requested records, the FOIA Officer shall make those records immediately available to the requester. If the determination upholds the adverse determination, the FOIA Appeals Officer shall notify the requester of the determination, the ability to obtain mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation, and the right to obtain judicial review in the appropriate Federal district court.

    (d) When appeal is required. Before seeking review by a court of the FOIA Officer's adverse determination, a requester generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal.

    § 517.9 Fees.

    (a) In general. Fees pursuant to the FOIA shall be assessed according to the schedule contained in paragraph (b) of this section for services rendered by the Commission in response to requests for records under this part. All fees shall be charged to the requester, except where the charging of fees is limited under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section or where a waiver or reduction of fees is granted under paragraph (c) of this section. Payment of fees should be by check or money order made payable to the Treasury of the United States.

    (b) Charges for responding to FOIA requests. The following fees shall be assessed in responding to requests for records submitted under this part, unless a waiver or reduction of fees has been granted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section:

    (1) Duplication. The FOIA Officer will honor a requester's preference for receiving a record in a particular form or format where he or she can readily reproduce the record in the form or format requested. When photocopies are supplied, the FOIA Officer shall charge $0.15 per page for copies of documents up to 81/2 x 14. For copies of records produced on tapes, compact discs, or other media, the FOIA Officer shall charge the direct costs of producing the copy, including operator time. Where paper documents must be scanned in order to comply with a requester's preference to receive the records in electronic format, the requester must also pay the direct costs associated with scanning those materials. For other methods of reproduction, the FOIA Officer shall charge the actual direct costs of producing the documents.

    (2) Searches—(i) Manual searches. Whenever feasible, the FOIA Officer will charge at the salary rate (basic pay plus 16% percent for benefits) of the employee or employees performing the search. However, where a homogenous class of personnel is used exclusively in a search (e.g., all administrative/clerical or all professional/executive), the FOIA Officer shall charge $4.45 per quarter hour for clerical time and $7.75 per quarter hour for professional time. Charges for search time less than a full hour will be in increments of quarter hours.

    (ii) Computer searches. The FOIA Officer will charge the actual direct costs of conducting computer searches. These direct costs shall include the cost of operating the central processing unit for that portion of operating time that is directly attributable to searching for requested records, as well as the costs of operator/programmer salary apportionable to the search. For requests that require the creation of a new computer program to locate requested records, the Commission will charge the direct costs associated with such program's creation. The FOIA Officer must notify the requester of the costs associated with creating such a program, and the requester must agree to pay the associated costs before the costs may be incurred.

    (3) Review fees. Review fees shall be assessed only with respect to those requesters who seek records for a commercial use under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Review fees shall be assessed at the same rates as those listed under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. Review fees shall be assessed only for the initial record review, for example, review undertaken when the FOIA Officer analyzes the applicability of a particular exemption to a particular record or portion thereof at the initial request level. No charge shall be assessed at the administrative appeal level of an exemption already applied.

    (c) Statutory waiver. Documents shall be furnished without charge or at a charge below that listed in paragraph (b) of this section where it is determined, based upon information provided by a requester or otherwise made known to the FOIA Officer, that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest. Disclosure is in the public interest if it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and is not primarily for commercial purposes. Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees shall be considered on a case by case basis. In order to determine whether the fee waiver requirement is met, the FOIA Officer shall consider the following six factors:

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

    (2) The informative value of the information to be disclosed. Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute to an understanding of government operations or activities;

    (3) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the general public likely to result from disclosure. Whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to public understanding;

    (4) The significance of the contribution to public understanding. Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations or activities;

    (5) The existence and magnitude of commercial interest. Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and, if so

    (6) The primary interest in disclosure. Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

    (d) Types of requesters. There are four categories of FOIA requesters: Commercial use requesters, educational and non-commercial scientific institutional requesters; representative of the news media; and all other requesters. These terms are defined in § 517.3. The following specific levels of fees are prescribed for each of these categories:

    (1) Commercial use requesters. The FOIA Officer shall charge commercial use requesters the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating requested records.

    (2) Educational and non-commercial scientific institutions requesters. The FOIA Officer shall charge educational and non-commercial scientific institution requesters for document duplication only, except that the first 100 pages of copies shall be provided without charge.

    (3) News media requesters. The FOIA Officer shall charge news media requesters for document duplication costs only, except that the first 100 pages of paper copies shall be provided without charge.

    (4) All other requesters. The FOIA Officer shall charge requesters who do not fall into any of the categories in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section fees which cover the full reasonable direct costs incurred for searching for and reproducing records if that total costs exceeds $15.00, except that the first 100 pages and the first two hours of manual search time shall not be charged. To apply this term to computer searches, the FOIA Officer shall determine the total hourly cost of operating the central processing unit and the operator's salary (plus 16 percent for benefits). When the cost of the search equals the equivalent dollar amount of two hours of the salary of the person performing the search, the FOIA Officer will begin assessing charges for the computer search.

    (e) Restrictions on charging fees. (1) Ordinarily, no charges will be assessed when requested records are not found or when records located are withheld as exempt. However, if the requester has been notified of the estimated cost of the search time and has been advised specifically that the requested records may not exist or may be withheld as exempt, fees may be charged.

    (2) If the Commission fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits for responding to a request, it may not charge search fees or, in cases where records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational institution, non-commercial scientific institution, or representative of the news media, duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)-(iii) of this section.

    (i) If the FOIA Officer determines that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and provides timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, then a failure to comply with the statutory time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.

    (ii) If the FOIA Officer determines that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, then the Commission may charge search fees and duplication fees, where applicable, if the following steps are taken. The FOIA Officer must:

    (A) Provide timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and

    (B) Discuss with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).

    (iii) If a court determines that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, then a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.

    (f) Charges for interest. The FOIA Officer may assess interest charges on an unpaid bill, accrued under previous FOIA request(s), starting the 31st day following the day on which the bill was sent to you. A fee received by the FOIA Officer, even if not processed will result in a stay of the accrual of interest. The Commission shall follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, its implementing procedures, and the Commission's debt collection regulations located in 25 CFR part 513 to recover any indebtedness owed to the Commission.

    (g) Aggregating requests. The requester or a group of requesters may not submit multiple requests at the same time, each seeking portions of a document or documents solely in order to avoid payment of fees. When the FOIA Officer reasonably believes that a requester is attempting to divide a request into a series of requests to evade an assessment of fees, the FOIA Officer may aggregate such request and charge accordingly.

    (h) Advance payment of fees. Fees may be paid upon provision of the requested records, except that payment may be required prior to that time if the requester has previously failed to pay fees or if the FOIA Officer determines that total fee will exceed $250.00. When payment is required in advance of the processing of a request, the time limits prescribed in § 517.6 shall not be deemed to begin until the FOIA Officer has received payment of the assessed fee.

    (i) Payment of fees. Where it is anticipated that the cost of providing the requested record will exceed $25.00 after the free duplication and search time has been calculated, and the requester has not indicated in advance a willingness to pay a fee greater than $25.00, the FOIA Officer shall promptly notify the requester of the amount of the anticipated fee or a portion thereof, which can readily be estimated. The notification shall offer the requester an opportunity to confer with agency representatives for the purpose of reformulating the request so as to meet the requester's needs at a reduced cost.

    Dated: January 12, 2018. Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, Chairman. Kathryn Isom-Clause, Vice Chair. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Associate Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01433 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1102] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine Parade; Hillsborough Bay; Tampa, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for the 2018 Gasparilla Marine Parade on the waters of Hillsborough Bay in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida. This event is expected to attract over 600 spectator craft along the parade route, with approximately 18 vessels participating in the official flotilla. This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of public, the official flotilla, and spectator vessels before, during, and after the conclusion of the parade.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on January 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-1102 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 Marine Science Technician First Class Michael D. Shackleford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email [email protected]

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by January 27, 2018.

    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 for the same reasons noted above.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the waters of the Hillsborough Bay, Tampa, Florida during the 2018 Gasparilla Marine Parade. This event is expected to attract over 600 spectator craft along the parade route, with approximately 18 vessels participating in the official flotilla. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of public, the official flotilla, and spectator vessels on these navigable waters of the United States during the 2018 Gasparilla Marine Parade. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation for the Gasparilla Marine Parade on the waters of Hillsborough Bay in Tampa, Florida. This special regulation sets forth specific requirements for vessels operating within the regulated area during the period of enforcement.

    Persons and vessels not meeting the requirements of this regulation may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulations by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced for only nine hours; (2) although certain persons and vessels are prohibited to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (4) persons and vessels not meeting the requirements of this regulation may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

    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 regulated area 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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add temporary § 100.T07-1102 to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-1102 Special Local Regulation; Gasparilla Marine Parade; Hillsborough Bay; Tampa, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. A regulated area is established consisting of the following waters of Hillsborough Bay and its tributaries north of 27°51′18″ N and south of the John F. Kennedy Bridge: Hillsborough Cut “D” Channel, Seddon Channel, Sparkman Channel and the Hillsborough River south of the John F. Kennedy Bridge. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.

    (b) Regulations. (1) Entrance into the regulated area is prohibited to all commercial marine traffic from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST on the day of the event.

    (2) The regulated area will include a 100 yard Safety Zone around the vessel JOSE GASPAR while docked at the Tampa Yacht Club until 6 p.m. EST on the day of the event.

    (3) The regulated area is a “no wake” zone.

    (4) All vessels within the regulated area shall stay 50 feet away from and give way to all officially entered vessels in parade formation in the Gasparilla Marine Parade.

    (5) When within the marked channels of the parade route, vessels participating in the Gasparilla Marine Parade may not exceed the minimum speed necessary to maintain steerage.

    (6) Jet skis and vessels without mechanical propulsion are prohibited from the parade route.

    (7) Vessels less than 10 feet in length are prohibited from the parade route unless capable of safely participating.

    (8) Vessels found to be unsafe to participate at the discretion of a present Law Enforcement Officer are prohibited from the parade route.

    (9) Northbound vessels in excess of 65 feet in length without mooring arrangement made prior to the date of the event are prohibited from entering Seddon Channel unless the vessel is officially entered in the Gasparilla Marine Parade.

    (10) Vessels not officially entered in the Gasparilla Marine Parade may not enter the parade staging area box within the following coordinates: 27°53′53″ N, 082°27′47″ W; 27°53′22″ N, 082°27′10″ W; 27°52′36″ N, 082°27′55″ W; 27°53′02″ N, 082°28′31″ W.

    (c) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on January 27, 2018.

    Holly L. Najarian, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Saint Petersburg.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01564 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0401; FRL-9972-62] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry51Aa2.834_16; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis in or on cotton, when used as a plant-incorporated protectant. Monsanto Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need under FFDCA to establish a maximum permissible level for such residues.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 26, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 27, 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-2017-0401, 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:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 174 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(g), 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-2017-0401 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 March 27, 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-2017-0401, 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. Background

    In the Federal Register of October 23, 2017 (82 FR 49020 (FRL-9967-370)), EPA issued notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 7F8566) by Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by establishing permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant-pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein in or on cotton. A summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Monsanto Company, is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice.

    One modification has been made to the original request for a tolerance exemption: EPA changed “plant-pesticide” to “plant-incorporated protectant”, to align with the Agency's vocabulary, which is published in 40 CFR part 174.3.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    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 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 in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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 . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Cry51Aa2.834_16 and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Assessment of the Plant-Incorporated Protectant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry51Aa2.834_16.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    Based upon available data, EPA concludes that the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein, which is a modified version of the wild-type Cry51Aa2 protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, does not show evidence of toxicity. Moreover, the source is not allergenic, nor is there any significant similarity between the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein and known toxins and allergens. In addition, the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein readily digests in simulated gastric fluids and therefore cumulative, chronic, and acute effects are unlikely.

    Given the lack of toxicity or allergenicity of the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein, the Agency has not identified any toxicological endpoints for assessing risk. Consequently, the Agency's assessment of exposure is qualitative. In addition, due to the lack of any threshold effects, EPA has determined that the provision to retain a 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children does not apply. Similarly, the lack of any toxic mode of action or toxic metabolites means that the provision requiring an assessment of cumulative effects does not apply.

    Oral exposure to Cry51Aa2.834_16 may occur from ingestion of cotton-derived foods, such as refined, bleached, and deodorized (RBD) cottonseed oil. Based on the lack of adverse effects and the rapid digestibility of the protein, however, the Agency does not anticipate any risk from reasonably foreseeable levels of exposure. Residues in drinking water may theoretically be present because cotton PIP plant stubble may release modified Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein into ground water upon decay. However, the protein would not be expected to survive in the soil due to microbial degradation, adherence to soil components, and removal upon drinking water treatment procedures. In addition, oral toxicity testing showed no adverse effects. Moreover, because the PIP is currently only proposed to be used only in plants grown for commercial use, the Agency does not anticipate residential exposures. In the event that future uses are sold for residential use, the Agency does not expect there to be residential, non-occupational dermal or inhalation exposures, due to containment of the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein within the plant.

    Based on the lack of any evidence of adverse effects in the toxicological database, dietary exposure to the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein is not anticipated to pose any harm to the U.S. population. EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein in or on cotton.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required because the lack of adverse effects makes enforcement and monitoring of residues unnecessary to ensure food safety.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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).

    V. 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 174

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

    Dated: December 28, 2017. Hayley Hughes, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 174—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Add § 174.539 to subpart W to read as follows:
    § 174.539 Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein, which is a modified protein derived from the Cry51Aa2 protein of Bacillus thuringiensis, in or on cotton are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance, when the Cry51Aa2.834_16 protein is used as a plant-incorporated protectant.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01519 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0578; FRL-9970-96] Calcium Salts of Phosphorous Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the calcium salts of phosphorous acid. Verdesian Life Sciences, LLC., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of calcium salts of phosphorous acid under FFDCA when used in accordance with the terms of the exemption.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 26, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 27, 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-2016-0578, 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:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 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(g), 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-2016-0578 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 March 27, 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-2016-0578, 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. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F8481) by Verdesian Life Sciences, LLC., 1001 Winstead Dr., Suite 480, Cary, NC 27513. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1210 be amended to include residues of the systemic fungicide/systemic acquired resistance (SAR) inducer calcium salts of phosphorous acid in or on all food commodities when used as an agricultural fungicide and in or on potatoes when applied as a post-harvest treatment at 35,600 ppm or less phosphorous acid. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Verdesian Life Sciences, LLC, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    The exemption being established in this action varies slightly from what the petitioner requested, for the reasons described in Unit III.C. below.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    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 in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption 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 . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) 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 FQPA Safety Factor (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.

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on calcium salts of phosphorous acid and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk.

    Because of the structural and functional similarity of calcium salts of phosphorous acid with potassium salts of phosphorous acid, Fosetyl-Al, and phosphonic acid, EPA was able to rely on toxicity data for those compounds to assess the toxicity potential of calcium salts of phosphorous acid. The resulting assessment indicates that calcium salts of phosphorous acid would not be considered acutely toxic nor present other concerns for subchronic or chronic toxicity, developmental toxicity, or mutagenicity. As such the Agency has not identified any endpoints of concern for calcium salts and has conducted a qualitative assessment of exposure. The Agency has determined that there is a potential for dietary exposure to residues of calcium salts of phosphorous acid in or on food from use as a pesticidal substance; exposures in drinking water are not expected due to the dissolution of calcium salts of phosphorous acid in water, and non-occupational exposures are not expected since calcium salts of phosphorous acid are not intended for residential use. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the November 8, 2017, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Calcium Salts of Phosphorous Acid.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that calcium salts of phosphorous acid are not toxic. Although there may be some exposure to residues in or on food when calcium salts of phosphorous acid are used as an agricultural fungicide or a systemic acquired resistance inducer, there is a lack of concern due to the lack of potential for adverse effects. EPA also determined that retention of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was not necessary due to the lack of threshold effects.

    Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of calcium salts of phosphorous acid. Therefore, EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of calcium salts of phosphorous acid.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes due to the lack of concern about safety for calcium salts of phosphorous acid at any exposure level.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA is establishing an exemption that varies slightly from what the petitioner requested. Because the petitioner requested the systemic acquired resistance inducer use specifically for calcium salts, which has not been assessed for the other salts of phosphorous acid, EPA is promulgating this exemption as a separate paragraph in the section for exemptions for residues of phosphorous acid and its salts. Moreover, the Agency is not including any specific reference for the post-harvest use on potatoes as requested for two reasons. First, unless otherwise specified, tolerances cover both pre-harvest and post-harvest applications. Second, because the original numerical limitation is written in terms of an amount of phosphorous acid that may be used, this limitation has no effect for an exemption based only on the related calcium salts of phosphorous acid, which have been considered as a distinct fungicide, although it is related to all the other salts of phosphorous acid. In any case, residues of calcium salts of phosphorous acid are considered to be covered for all post-harvest uses without numerical limitation, including those on potatoes.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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).

    V. 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: January 5, 2018. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, 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. Revise § 180.1210 to read as follows:
    § 180.1210 Phosphorous acid; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    (a) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium and potassium salts in or on all food commodities when used as an agricultural fungicide and in or on potatoes when applied as a post-harvest treatment at 35,600 ppm or less phosphorous acid.

    (b) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of calcium salts of phosphorous acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all food commodities when used as a fungicide or as a systemic acquired resistance (SAR) inducer.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01494 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0333; FRL-9970-88] Chlorfenapyr; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of chlorfenapyr, 4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5-(trifluromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile, in or on tea, dried. BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 26, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 27, 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-2016-0333, 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, P.E., Director, Registration Division (750P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the 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-2016-0333 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 March 27, 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-2016-0333, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-45), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8473) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.513 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorfenapyr, 4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5-(trifluromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile, in or on tea, dried at 70 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. This tolerance was requested to cover residues of chlorfenapyr in or on tea resulting from uses of this pesticide on tea outside the United States. There is no current U.S. registration for use of chlorfenapyr on tea. In addition, there were no substantive comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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. Chlorfenapyr has moderate acute toxicity via the oral route of exposure and low acute toxicity via the dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is a mild eye irritant, but it is not a dermal irritant or sensitizer. Chlorfenapyr targets the central nervous system (CNS), inducing neurohistological changes (spongiform myelinopathy of the brain and spinal cord and vacuolization of the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve) from subchronic and chronic dietary administration in mice and rats. In addition to neuropathology, rats also exhibited neurobehavioral changes on the day of dosing in the acute neurotoxicity study. Decreased motor activity was observed in the acute neurotoxicity study as well as in offspring in the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. Several rat studies also noted effects in the liver (increased organ weights and tumors) at doses similar to or above those where CNS effects were seen. The liver was identified in metabolism studies as the single organ to have the highest recovery of administered dose.

    There was evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility to offspring in the database as a result of chlorfenapyr exposure. In the two-generation reproduction study, decreased pup weights were seen at a lower dose than parental toxicity (decreased body-weight). In the DNT study, offspring toxicity (decreased motor activity and increased pup deaths on postnatal days 1-4) was seen in the absence of maternal toxicity. Additional effects on the CNS (vacuolation of white matter in the brain and decreased hippocampus size) were also observed in offspring at a higher dose in this study. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility to offspring in the developmental toxicity studies. In both the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, although no maternal or developmental effects were noted up to the highest doses tested (HDT), maternal observations are limited in these developmental studies. Consequently, the data from the DNT are considered more robust for assessing the effects of chlorfenapyr on the nervous system.

    Given the lack of toxicity in the rat and rabbit developmental studies, the early pup deaths in the reproduction toxicity and DNT studies are suspected to be the result of postnatal exposure through lactation. Chlorfenapyr has a relatively high octanol-water partition coefficient (log KOW = 4.83) and has been shown to accumulate in milk due to its lipophilic nature in a dietary cow study. In addition, in a rat metabolism study, chlorfenapyr was found to accumulate in the fat, such that females exhibited greater accumulation than males. This suggests chlorfenapyr is capable of accumulating in breast milk and likely causing the early pup deaths seen in the reproduction toxicity and DNT studies through lactation.

    Chlorfenapyr did not show any evidence of mutagenicity in in vitro or in vivo studies. Chlorfenapyr is classified as “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential.”

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by chlorfenapyr as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled “Chlorfenapyr: Revised Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review,” dated September 7, 2016, which can be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0467 as well in the document completed in support of this tolerance action entitled “Chlorfenapyr. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of a Tolerance without a U.S. Registration for Residues in/on Imported Tea,” dated March 1, 2017, which can be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0333.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for chlorfenapyr used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Chlorfenapyr for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RFD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute Dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Acute RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
  • LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on increased pup deaths (post-natal days 1-4) and decreased motor activity.
  • Chronic Dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Chronic RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
  • LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on increased pup deaths (post-natal days 1-4) and decreased motor activity.
  • Chronic Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
  • NOAEL = 2.6 mg/kg/day.
  • LOAEL = 13.6 mg/kg/day based on alterations of the myelin of the CNS and decreased water consumption in male rats, decreased food consumption in females, and decreased body-weight in both sexes.
  • Incidental Oral Short-Term (1-30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6 months) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
  • LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on increased pup deaths (post-natal days 1-4) and decreased motor activity.
  • Dermal Short-Term (1-30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6 months) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
  • LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on increased pup deaths (post-natal days 1-4) and decreased motor activity.
  • Inhalation Short-Term (1-30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6 months) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
  • LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on increased pup deaths (post-natal days 1-4) and decreased motor activity.
  • Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classified as “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential.” The Agency determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., using a cRfD) adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to chlorfenapyr. NOAEL = no-observed adverse-effect level. LOAEL = lowest-observed adverse-effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population-adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to chlorfenapyr, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing chlorfenapyr tolerances in 40 CFR 180.513. EPA assessed dietary exposures from chlorfenapyr in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for chlorfenapyr. In estimating acute dietary (food only) exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model—Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA's acute analysis was unrefined and used tolerance-level residues and 100% crop-treated (PCT). Tolerances for food/feed handling establishments are not included in the acute dietary assessment unless the food/feed handling establishment is the only use; however, this is not the case for chlorfenapyr. DEEM 7.81 default processing factors were used in the acute analysis for tomato commodities as there is a registered agricultural use on fruiting vegetables.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment, EPA used the DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16, which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's NHANES/WWEIA from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA's chronic dietary exposure analysis for the all population subgroups was unrefined and used tolerance-level residues and 100% PCT. As most tolerances for chlorfenapyr are for food or feed handling establishment uses and residues are expected to be incurred after processing, DEEM 7.81 processing factors were set to 1 for all commodities except tomato commodities (as there is a registered agricultural use on fruiting vegetables). For tomato commodities, default processing factors were used in the analysis.

    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data. Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear approach using the chronic RfD for assessing cancer risk is appropriate for chlorfenapyr; therefore, a separate quantitative cancer risk assessment is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for chlorfenapyr. Tolerance level residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The acute and chronic dietary analysis did not include exposure from drinking water as contamination of drinking water with chlorfenapyr as a result of all registered uses, including greenhouses, is not expected to occur. Furthermore, as there are no U.S. registrations for tea, a dietary exposure assessment from drinking water is not needed.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Chlorfenapyr is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: crack/crevice/spot treatment on indoor and outdoor residential sites (including as a bed bug treatment). Residential exposures are not expected to occur from use of chlorfenapyr on tea since chlorfenapyr will not be applied to tea in the United States. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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

    EPA has not found chlorfenapyr to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and chlorfenapyr does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that chlorfenapyr 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

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility, concern is low since the offspring effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values and the endpoints selected for risk assessment are protective of observed offspring effects, including those observed in lactating pups.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for chlorfenapyr is complete.

    ii. Although the central nervous system is the primary target for chlorfenapyr and neurotoxic effects were observed across studies, concern is low since the selected PODs are protective of observed neurotoxic effects.

    iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility, concern is low since the offspring effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values and the endpoints selected for risk assessment are protective of observed offspring effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute and chronic analysis did not include exposure from drinking water as contamination of drinking water with chlorfenapyr as the result of all registered uses, including greenhouses, is not expected to occur. Furthermore, as there is no U.S. registration for tea, a dietary exposure assessment from drinking water is not needed. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by chlorfenapyr.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account the acute exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the resulting acute (food only) risk estimates were less than EPA's LOC (<100% of the aPAD) for the general U.S. population (15% of the aPAD) and all population subgroups. The most highly exposed population subgroup was children 1 to 2 years old with an estimated equivalent risk to 36% of the aPAD; therefore, the acute dietary exposure to chlorfenapyr is below the Agency's LOC.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that the resulting chronic risk estimate utilizes 4.6% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population. The most highly-exposed population subgroup was children 1 to 2 years old which utilized 9.9% of the cPAD; therefore, the chronic dietary exposure to chlorfenapyr for all population subgroups is below the Agency's LOC. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of chlorfenapyr is not expected.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments were performed since there is potential for post-application exposure from the previously registered uses of chlorfenapyr in residential settings. Since the short- and intermediate-term endpoints and PODs are the same, the short-term aggregate assessment is protective of intermediate-term exposure. The short-term aggregate MOE of 840 for adults is greater than the LOC (100), and is, therefore, not a concern. For children (1 to <2 years old), the most highly exposed population subgroup, the short-term aggregate MOE of 140 is greater than the LOC (100), and is, therefore, not a concern.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III. C.1.iii., EPA concluded that regulation based on the cRfD will be protective for both chronic and carcinogenic risks. As noted in this unit, there are no chronic risks of concern; therefore, the Agency concludes that aggregate exposure to chlorfenapyr will not pose a cancer risk.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The enforcement method is designated as M 2427, a gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD) method with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm. Method M 2427 has been subjected to a successful independent laboratory validation (ILV) as well as an acceptable radiovalidation using samples obtained from lettuce and tomato metabolism studies. This method is adequate for data collection and tolerance enforcement purposes.

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for chlorfenapyr in or on tea, dried.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA is establishing a tolerance for “tea, dried”, as opposed to “tea” as requested by the petitioner, for consistency with the Agency's food and feed commodity vocabulary. In addition, EPA is amending the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) to be consistent with the Agency's policy for drafting the tolerance expression. These revisions reflect the language in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), which includes metabolites and degradates of a pesticide chemical under the same tolerance unless otherwise excluded, as well as providing greater clarity for measuring residues to determine compliance. These revisions do not substantively change the existing tolerances in paragraph (a)(3).

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established without U.S. registrations for residues of chlorfenapyr, 4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5-(trifluromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile, in or on tea, dried at 70 parts per million.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes 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 tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 18, 2017. 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 § 180.513, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 180.513 Chlorfenapyr; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of chlorfenapyr, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only chlorfenapyr, 4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile, in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Tea, dried 1 70 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 1.0 1 There are no U.S. registrations for Tea, dried as of January 26, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01487 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0498; FRL-9971-94] Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for residues of flonicamid in or on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads.

    This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of flonicamid in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 26, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 27, 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-2017-0498, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 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. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 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 EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0498 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 March 27, 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-2017-0498, 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of insecticide flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide) and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on prickly pear, fruit at 1.5 parts per million (ppm) and prickly pear, pads at 1.5 ppm. These time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

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

    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

    III. Emergency Exemption for Flonicamid on Prickly Pear, Fruit and Prickly Pear, Pads and FFDCA Tolerances

    The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) requested a specific emergency exemption for the use of flonicamid on prickly pear cactus fruit (Opuntia spp.) and nopalitos (pads) to control cochineal (Dactylopius opuntiae) in Monterey County, California. Cochineal insects are sap-sucking, aggressive scale insects that are considered to be a major pest for prickly pear cactus. These insects damage the cactus plant by inserting their mouth parts into the cactus and feeding on the plant's sap. The feeding site of the cactus begins to swell and discolor. Eventually, the outer pads of the plant will fall off and the entire cactus plant dies. Cochineal colonies were first observed in the Salinas Valley cactus plantations in 2003. Birds heavily feed on cactus fruit, and while feeding on cochineal infected plants, the birds can pick up the nymphs on their feet and aid in spreading of the population. In 2013 and 2015 reduced amounts of precipitation in Salinas, California caused the cochineal population to flourish and build to uncontrollable levels. Even though 2016 and 2017 received normal levels of rain, cochineal infestations have not been inhibited due to the amount of cochineal present and the ineffective control from registered alternatives. As a result, growers are experiencing significant damage to their prickly pear cactus crops.

    After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an emergency condition exists for this State, and that the criteria for approval of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of flonicamid on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads for control of cochineal in California.

    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of flonicamid in or on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent, non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether flonicamid meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of flonicamid by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c), nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any State other than California to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for flonicamid, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and the time-limited tolerances for residues of flonicamid on prickly pear, fruit at 1.5 ppm and prickly pear, pads at 1.5 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing time-limited tolerances follows.

    A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flonicamid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2012 (77 FR 67771) (FRL-9368-7).

    B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to flonicamid, EPA considered exposure expected under the time-limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing flonicamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flonicamid in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. No acute effects were observed at doses well above those likely to be encountered; therefore, an endpoint was not selected, and a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA Survey. For the proposed section 18 use of flonicamid on prickly pear, fruit and pads, a dietary exposure assessment was not performed because there was no consumption reported for either commodity in NHANES/WWEIA. Due to the limited production and availability of prickly pear commodities, any increase in flonicamid dietary exposure from consumption of prickly pear commodities is expected to be insignificant compared to the flonicamid exposures pursuant to existing tolerances for flonicamid on various fruits and vegetables (40 CFR 180.613) which are produced in significantly greater quantities that prickly pear. These existing flonicamid tolerances are based on conservative (protective) exposure assumptions including use of tolerance level residues for all crops and 100% of the crops were treated. Therefore, any additional chronic risks from exposures of residues of flonicamid on prickly pear would likely be accounted for through the conservative assumptions underlying the existing tolerances.

    iii. Cancer. As discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2012 (77 FR 67771), EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to flonicamid. For the same reasons discussed in Unit IV.B.ii., regarding chronic exposure, EPA believes that any additional cancer risks from exposures of residues of flonicamid on prickly pear would likely be accounted for through the conservative assumptions underlying the existing tolerances.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for flonicamid. Tolerance level residues and 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities included in the exposure assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

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

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

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

    ii. There is no indication that flonicamid is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

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

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

    D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effects were observed to result from single oral exposures at doses well above those likely to be encountered, and therefore, flonicamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to flonicamid from food and water will utilize 59% of the cPAD for (children 1-2 years old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for flonicamid.

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

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Flonicamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposures.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the information referenced in Unit IV.A, EPA has concluded that the cPAD is protective of possible cancer effects from flonicamid because, as noted in Unit IV.D.2, aggregate chronic exposure to flonicamid is below the cPAD.

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

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (FMC Method No. P-3561M, a liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method is available to enforce the tolerance expression for flonicamid and its metabolites in or on plant commodities. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for flonicamid.

    VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide) and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on prickly pear, fruit at 1.5 ppm and prickly pear, pads at 1.5 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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 in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances 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: December 28, 2017. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.613, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    §  180.613 Flonicamid; tolerances for residues.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances specified in the following table are established for residues of the flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide) and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerances expire on the date specified in the table.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Expiration
  • date
  • Prickly pear, fruit 1.5 12/31/2020 Prickly pear, pads 1.5 12/31/2020
    [FR Doc. 2018-01480 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254; FRL-9971-95] Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of difenoconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes several previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective January 26, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 27, 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-2016-0254, 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 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. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the 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-2016-0254 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 March 27, 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-2016-0254, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 26, 2017 (82 FR 34664) (FRL-9963-50), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8484) by IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.475 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methy-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 35 parts per million (ppm); cranberry at 0.6 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 4.0 ppm; guava at 3.0 ppm; kohlrabi at 2.0 ppm; papaya at 0.6 ppm; and vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 2.0 ppm. Upon establishment of proposed tolerances above, the petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.475 be amended by removing existing tolerances for residues of difenoconazole in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.9 ppm, Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 35 ppm; grape at 4.0 ppm; and turnip, greens at 35 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Tolerances being established vary from what was requested, for the reasons explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    Difenoconazole exhibits low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant and is not a sensitizer. Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies with difenoconazole in mice and rats showed decreased body weights and effects on the liver (e.g. hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver necrosis, fatty changes in the liver). No systemic toxicity was observed at the limit dose in a rat dermal toxicity study.

    The available toxicity studies indicated no increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits from in utero or postnatal exposure to difenoconazole. In prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, fetal and offspring toxicity, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal and parental animals. In a rat developmental toxicity study, developmental effects were observed at doses higher than those which caused maternal toxicity. Developmental effects in the rat included increased incidence of ossification of the thoracic vertebrae and thyroid, decreased number of sternal centers of ossification, increased number of ribs and thoracic vertebrae, and decreased number of lumbar vertebrae. In the rabbit study, developmental effects (increases in post-implantation loss and resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen at maternally toxic (decreased body weight gain and food consumption) doses. Since the developmental effects are more severe than the maternal effects, qualitative susceptibility is indicated in the rabbit developmental study; however, the selected POD is protective of this effect. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the fetuses and offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal and parental animals.

    In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, reduced fore-limb grip strength was observed on day one in males at the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level of 200 mg/kg (LOAEL), and clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in females only at the highest dose tested (2,000 mg/kg). In a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, decreased hind limb strength was observed in males only at doses ≥17.5 mg/kg/day. The effects observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are transient with no histologic findings.

    Although there is some evidence that difenoconazole affects antibody levels at doses that cause systemic toxicity, there are no indications in the available studies that organs associated with immune function, such as the thymus and spleen, are affected by difenoconazole. Difenoconazole is not mutagenic, and no evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in rats. Evidence for carcinogenicity was seen in mice as induction of liver tumors at doses which were considered to be excessively high for carcinogenicity testing. Difenoconazole has been classified as “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential” based on liver tumors observed in mice at 46.3 mg/kg/day and higher, the absence of tumors at two lower doses of 1.5 and 4.6 mg/kg/day, respectively, excessive toxicity observed at the two highest doses of 423 and 819 mg/kg/day, respectively, the absence of genotoxicity, and no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats. EPA has concluded that the chronic point of departure (POD) for assessing chronic risk (0.96 mg/kg/day) will be protective of any cancer effects for the following reasons: (1) Tumors were seen in only one species; (2) carcinoma tumors were observed only at the two highest doses (2,500 and 4,500 ppm) in the mouse carcinogenicity study; (3) benign tumors and necrosis were observed at the mid- dose (300 ppm) ; (4) the absence of tumors at the study's lower doses (30 ppm); (5) the absence of genotoxic or mutagenic effects. The cRfD of 0.96 mg/kg/day is well below the no-observed- adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) of the mouse carcinogenicity study of 30 ppm (4.7 and 5.6 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), at which no effects on the biological endpoints relevant to tumor development (i.e., hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver necrosis, fatty changes in the liver and bile stasis) were seen. As a result, EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to difenoconazole and a separate quantitative cancer exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by difenoconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “SUBJECT: Difenoconazole. Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Foliar Uses on Cranberry, Guava, and Papaya. Expansion of Registered Foliar Use on Grape to Crop Subgroup 13-07F (Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit). Conversion of Registered Foliar Uses on Crop Subgroups 5A and 5B to Crop Group 5-16 (Vegetable, Brassica, Head and Stem), Crop Subgroup 4-16B (Brassica, Leafy Greens (includes Watercress)), and Kohlrabi, October 11, 2017” at pp. 42-50 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for difenoconazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of April 2, 2015 (80 FR 17697) (FRL-9923-82).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to difenoconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing difenoconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.475. EPA assessed dietary exposures from difenoconazole in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for difenoconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID which incorporates consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and available empirical or DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting a refined chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from USDA's NHANES/WWEIA survey program. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for some commodities, average field trial residues and USDA Pesticide Data Program monitoring samples for the remaining commodities, available empirical or DEEM (ver.7.81) default processing factors, and average PCT assumptions for some commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to difenoconazole. Therefore, a separate quantitative cancer exposure assessment is unnecessary since the chronic dietary risk estimate will be protective of potential cancer risk.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    For the chronic dietary exposure analysis, the Agency used average PCT estimates for existing uses as follows: Almond 10%, apple 20%, apricot 10%, broccoli 2.5%, Brussels sprout 2.5%, cabbage 5%, cantaloupe 2.5%, carrot 5%, cauliflower 2.5%, cherry 2.5%, cucumber 5%, garlic 5%, grape 10%, grapefruit 5%, hazelnut 1%, nectarine 2.5%, onion 5%, orange 2.5%, pecan 2.5%, peach 2.5%, pear 10%, pepper 5%, pistachio 5%, plum 10%, potato 20%, pumpkin 2.5%, soybean 2.5%, squash 5%, strawberry 2.5%, sugar beet 15%, tangerine 2.5%, tomato 25%, walnut 1%, watermelon 5%, and wheat 10%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT value for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT value for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use and averaged across all observations and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, for use in the analysis unless the average PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5% or 1%, in which case the Agency uses 2.5% or 1%, respectively, as the average PCT value in the analysis. EPA uses a maximum PCT value for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT value is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5% for use in the analysis, unless the maximum PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5%, in which case the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum PCT value in the analysis.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which difenoconazole may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The drinking water assessment was performed using a total toxic residue method, which considers both parent difenoconazole and its major metabolite, CGA 205375, or total toxic residues (TTR) from difenoconazole uses, in surface and groundwater. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for difenoconazole and CGA 205375 in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of difenoconazole, plus CGA 205375. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Tier II Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC v1.52) model and Tier 1 Rice Model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of TTR of difenoconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 33.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.0 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures EDWCs of TTR of difenoconazole for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 27.8 ppb for surface water and 0.60 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 33.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 27.8 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Difenoconazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Treatment of ornamental plants in commercial and residential landscapes and interior plantscapes. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, adult short-term dermal and inhalation exposure is expected from mixing, loading, and applying difenoconazole on ornamentals (gardens and trees). For residential post-application exposures, short-term dermal exposure is expected for both adults and children from post-application activities in treated residential landscapes.

    The scenarios used in the aggregate assessment were those that resulted in the highest exposures. The highest exposures consist of the short-term dermal exposure to adults from post-application activities in treated gardens and short-term dermal exposure to children 6 to 11 years old from post-application activities in treated gardens. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

    Difenoconazole is a member of the conazole class of fungicides containing the 1,2,4-triazole moiety. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events (EPA, 2002).

    In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that difenoconazole shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other conazole pesticide, and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach for this tolerance action. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    Difenoconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two conjugated triazole metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-containing pesticides, including difenoconazole, EPA previously conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from existing and pending uses of any triazole-containing fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). The Agency retained a 3X for the LOAEL to NOAEL safety factor when the reproduction study was used. In addition, the Agency retained a 10X for the lack of studies including a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

    The Agency's latest updated aggregate risk assessment for the triazole-containing metabolites was finalized on July 18, 2017 and includes the new uses in this rule. It is titled, “Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address the New Section 3 Registrations for Use of Difenoconazole and Tetraconazole.” Aggregate risk estimates associated with 1,2,4-triazole (T) and the conjugated triazole metabolites (i.e., combined residues of triazolylalanine (TA) and triazolylacetic acid (TAA)), are below the Agency's level of concern. There are no human health risk issues for these metabolites that would preclude the new uses of difenoconazole. The assessment may be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicology database for difenoconazole includes rat and rabbit prenatal developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. The available Agency guideline studies indicated no increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of rats to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to difenoconazole. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the fetuses/offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal/parental animals. In a rat developmental toxicity study developmental effects were observed at doses higher than those which caused maternal toxicity. In the rabbit study, developmental effects (increases in post-implantation loss and resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen at maternally toxic doses (decreased body weight gain and food consumption). Since the developmental effects are more severe than the maternal effects, qualitative susceptibility is indicated in the rabbit developmental study; however, the selected POD is protective of this effect. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the fetuses/offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal/parental animals.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for difenoconazole is complete.

    ii. There are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following acute, subchronic or chronic dosing in multiple species in the difenoconazole database. The effects observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are transient and showed in one sex (males as reduced fore-limb grip strength with no histologic findings), and the selected endpoints of toxicity for risk assessment are protective of any potential neurotoxicity. Based on the toxicity profile, and lack of concern for neurotoxicity, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that difenoconazole results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. The qualitative susceptibility seen in the rabbit developmental study is adequately protected by the selected POD.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary risk assessment utilized tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT for the acute assessment; a refined chronic assessment incorporated USDA PDP monitoring data, average field-trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for remaining commodities, and average PCT for some commodities. These assumptions will not underestimate dietary exposure to difenoconazole. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to difenoconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by difenoconazole.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to difenoconazole will occupy 52% of the aPAD for all infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to difenoconazole from food and water will utilize 51% of the cPAD for all infants <1year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of difenoconazole is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Difenoconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to difenoconazole.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of aggregate MOEs of 250 for children and 180 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for difenoconazole is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, difenoconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for difenoconazole.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., the chronic dietary risk assessment is protective of any potential cancer effects. Based on the results of that assessment, EPA concludes that difenoconazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies are available to enforce the tolerance expression. An adequate enforcement method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method AG-575B, is available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole per se in/on plant commodities. An adequate enforcement method, GC/MSD method AG-676A, is also available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole per se in/on canola and barley commodities. A confirmatory method, GC/MSD method AG-676, is also available. The Limit of Quantitation (LOQs) are 0.01-0.05 ppm.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has established MRLs for difenoconazole in/on papaya at 0.2 ppm; grape at 3 ppm (a crop member of fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit crop subgroup 13-07F); dried grapes at 6 ppm; and broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower at 2 ppm (crop members of vegetables, Brassica, head and stem crop group 5-16). The U.S. tolerances are harmonized with these Codex MRLs with the exception of the U.S. tolerance at 0.60 ppm in/on papaya due to differences in U.S. good agricultural practices (GAP) and concerns that the Codex MRL in/on papaya at 0.2 ppm is too low to cover residues in/on U.S. papaya commodities treated in accordance with approved label directions for difenoconazole.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA is establishing the tolerance for Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 3.0 ppm rather than the requested 4.0 ppm for harmonization with the currently established Codex MRL for residues of difenoconazole in/on grape which reflects U.S. GAP. In addition, EPA corrected the tolerance level to include an additional significant figure for cranberry and papaya from the requested 0.6 ppm to 0.60 ppm. This is to avoid the situation where rounding of an observed residue to the level of precision of the tolerance expression would be considered non-violative (such as 0.64 ppm being rounded to 0.6 ppm).

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methy-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 35 ppm; Cranberry at 0.60 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 3.0 ppm; Guava at 3.0 ppm; Kohlrabi at 2.0 ppm; Papaya at 0.60 ppm; and Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 2.0 ppm. In addition, established tolerances for “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A”; “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B”; “Grape”; “Papaya”; and “Turnip, greens” are removed because they are superseded by the tolerances being established in this action.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 27, 2017. Daniel Rosenblatt, Acting 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 § 180.475, paragraph (a)(1): a. Remove the entries for “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A” and “Brassica, leafy green, subgroup 5B”; b. Add alphabetically the entry for “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B”; c. Add alphabetically the entries for “Cranberry” and “Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F”; d. Remove the entry for “Grape”; e. Add alphabetically the entries for “Guava” and “Kohlrabi”; f. Revise the entry for “Papaya”; g. Remove the entry for “Turnip, greens”; and h. Add alphabetically the entry for “Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16”.

    The additions and revision read as follows:

    § 180.475 Difenoconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B 35 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Cranberry 0.60 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 3.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Guava 3.0 Kohlrabi 2.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Papaya 0.60 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 2.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-01479 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8517] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

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

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

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region VI Texas: Bayview, Town of, Cameron County 480102 October 7, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1981, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp February 16, 2018 February 16, 2018. Brownsville, City of, Cameron County 480103 January 15, 1971, Emerg; December 1, 1978, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do*   Do. Combes, Town of, Cameron County 480104 September 6, 1978, Emerg; September 1, 1981, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Harlingen, City of, Cameron County 485477 November 6, 1970, Emerg; June 23, 1972, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Indian Lake, Town of, Cameron County 481695 N/A, Emerg; September 24, 2002, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. La Feria, City of, Cameron County 480106 October 31, 1973, Emerg; August 3, 1984, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Laguna Vista, Town of, Cameron County 485483 August 13, 1971, Emerg; July 21, 1972, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Port Isabel, City of, Cameron County 480109 October 29, 1971, Emerg; October 6, 1976, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Rancho Viejo, Town of, Cameron County 481646 N/A, Emerg; July 10, 1992, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Rio Hondo, City of, Cameron County 480112 April 3, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1981, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. San Benito, City of, Cameron County 480113 May 13, 1974, Emerg; May 5, 1981, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Santa Rosa, City of, Cameron County 480114 August 29, 1980, Emerg; May 5, 1981, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. South Padre Island, City of, Cameron County 480115 November 26, 1973, Emerg; September 15, 1983, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Region VII Iowa: Bussey, City of, Marion County 190710 N/A, Emerg; May 26, 2010, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Centerville, City of, Appanoose County 190009 July 22, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1987, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Chariton, City of, Lucas County 190195 October 18, 1974, Emerg; February 1, 1987, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Lamoni, City of, Decatur County 190110 June 4, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1987, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Lucas, City of, Lucas County 190196 December 29, 1975, Emerg; August 16, 1988, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Marion County, Unincorporated Areas 190889 February 21, 1997, Emerg; November 7, 2001, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Marysville, City of, Marion County 190456 N/A, Emerg; March 4, 2008, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Melrose, City of, Monroe County 190465 September 16, 1981, Emerg; July 2, 1987, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Pella, City of, Marion County 190837 N/A, Emerg; January 12, 2007, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Pleasantville, City of, Marion County 190838 N/A, Emerg; June 20, 2011, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Seymour, City of, Wayne County 190655 February 6, 1978, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Swan, City of, Marion County 190398 N/A, Emerg; April 20, 2017, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Unionville, Town of, Appanoose County 190923 October 29, 1976, Emerg; July 1, 1988, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Woodburn, City of, Clarke County 190070 November 23, 2007, Emerg; May 1, 2011, Reg; February 16, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. *......do and Do. = ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: January 19, 2018. Eric Letvin, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01461 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8515] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

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

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

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/
  • cancellation of sale of
  • flood insurance in
  • community
  • Current effective map date Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region VI Louisiana: Grand Isle, Town of, Jefferson Parish 225197 August 28, 1970, Emerg; October 30, 1970, Reg; February 2, 2018, Susp Feb. 2, 2018 Feb. 2, 2018. Gretna, City of, Jefferson Parish 225198 August 14, 1970, Emerg; June 18, 1971, Reg; February 2, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Harahan, City of, Jefferson Parish 225200 April 19, 1973, Emerg; June 15, 1973, Reg; February 2, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Jean Lafitte, Town of, Jefferson Parish 220371 N/A, Emerg; October 1, 1971, Reg;
  • February 2, 2018, Susp
  • ......do   Do.
    Westwego, City of, Jefferson Parish 220094 April 27, 1973, Emerg; December 28, 1976, Reg; February 2, 2018, Susp ......Do   Do. *......do and Do. = ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: January 5, 2018. Eric Letvin, <E T="03">Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2018-01463 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 216 [Docket No. 170803723-8016-01] RIN 0648-BH09 Technical Amendment To Update Internet Web Addresses in Marine Mammal Protection Act and Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act Regulations AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is hereby making technical amendments without altering the substance of the regulations that govern importation into the United States of tuna product and dolphin-safe tuna labeling in the United States under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA). The intent of this action is to update existing regulations containing Uniform Resource Locator (URL) addresses, more commonly referred to as internet web page addresses. The URL updates are necessary because NMFS is revising all agency URLs under the NOAA Fisheries Web Modernization Project. These changes are solely administrative in nature.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective January 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Jacobson, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-4035.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.24(f)(3) and 50 CFR part 216, subpart H contain URLs that provide importers, tuna processors, and fishermen that harvest tuna for the U.S. market, access to information critical to regulatory compliance. NMFS is undergoing an agency-wide modification of the naming convention used in all existing URLs. Failure to change the URLs in the regulatory text would render the URL references in the regulations unusable, confusing the regulated public.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the MMPA, the DPCIA, and other applicable laws.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    NOAA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) to issue this final rule without advance notice in a proposed rule or the opportunity for public comment, and to make the rule effective immediately without providing a 30-day delay, because the content of this rule makes a technical correction and does not affect the substance of regulations that affect the public. Public input is not necessary to determine the correct URL, and delaying codification of the correct URL would not be in the public interest.

    Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 216

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Imports, Labeling, Marine mammals.

    Dated: January 19, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 216 is amended as follows:

    PART 216—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 216 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

    Subpart C—General Exceptions 2. In §  216.24, revise introductory text of paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
    §  216.24 Taking and related acts incidental to commercial fishing operations by tuna purse seine vessels in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

    (f) * * *

    (3) Disposition of Fisheries Certificates of Origin. The FCO described in paragraph (f)(4) of this section may be obtained from the Administrator, West Coast Region, or downloaded from the internet at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/noaa-form-370-fisheries-certificate-origin.

    Subpart H—Dolphin Safe Tuna Labeling 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 216, subpart H, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1385.

    4. In §  216.91, revise paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B), introductory text of paragraph (a)(3)(iv), and introductory text of paragraph (a)(3)(v) to read as follows:
    § 216.91 Dolphin-safe labeling standards.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (B) The Captain of the vessel has completed the NMFS Tuna Tracking and Verification Program dolphin-safe captain's training course. The NMFS Tuna Tracking and Verification Program dolphin-safe captain's training course is available on the website of the NMFS Tuna Tracking and Verification Program at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/dolphin-safe.

    (iv) For tuna caught in a fishery where the Assistant Administrator has determined that observers participating in a national or international observer program are qualified and authorized to issue observer statements for purposes of the dolphin-safe labeling program, and where such an observer is on board the vessel, a written statement executed by the observer, or by an authorized representative of a nation participating in the observer program based on information from the observer. Any determination by the Assistant Administrator shall be announced in a notice published in the Federal Register. Determinations under this paragraph (a)(3)(iv) will also be publicized on the website of the NMFS Tuna Tracking and Verification Program (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/dolphin-safe). The written statement shall certify:

    (v) For tuna caught in a fishery in which the Assistant Administrator has determined that either a regular and significant association between dolphins and tuna (similar to the association between dolphins and tuna in the ETP) or a regular and significant mortality or serious injury of dolphins is occurring, a written statement, executed by the Captain of the vessel and an observer participating in a national or international program acceptable to the Assistant Administrator, unless the Assistant Administrator determines an observer statement is unnecessary. Determinations under this paragraph (a)(3)(v) will also be publicized on the website of the NMFS Tuna Tracking and Verification Program (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/dolphin-safe). The written statement shall certify that:

    5. In §  216.95, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 216.95 Official mark for “Dolphin-safe” tuna products.

    (b) Location and size of the official mark. The official mark on labels must allow the consumer to identify the official mark and be similar in design and scale to figure 1. A full color version of the official mark is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/dolphin-safe-official-mark.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01375 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 161020985-7181-02] RIN 0648-XF949 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 23, 2018, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 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 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 5,027 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017), inseason adjustment (82 FR 60329, December 20, 2017), and reallocation (83 FR 2932, January 22, 2018).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.

    After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    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 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 closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 19, 2017.

    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 required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 22, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01384 Filed 1-23-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 18 Friday, January 26, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0757; Product Identifier 2017-SW-022-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain serial numbered Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) Model 429 helicopters. This proposed AD would require marking a serial number on life-limited forward spars and actuator fitting assemblies. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0757; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the Transport Canada AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Helene Gandy, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5413; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2017-02, dated January 16, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for BHTC Model 429 helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 57150, 57168, 57176, 57210, 57211 through 57216, 57265, 57266, 57267, and 57287. Transport Canada advises that forward spars part number (P/N) 429-031-213-103 and 429-031-213-104 and actuator fitting assembly P/N 429-031-222-101 and 429-031-222-102 have life limits of 30,000 and 19,000 Retirement Index Numbers, respectively. However, Transport Canada states these parts are not serialized and therefore their accumulated usage is difficult to track, which creates a risk that these parts could remain in service beyond their life limits. This condition could result in failure of the part.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 429-16-34, dated November 10, 2016, which specifies procedures for permanently marking each forward spar and actuator fitting assembly with the serial number of the helicopter.

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

    Other Related Service Information

    We also reviewed Bell Helicopter Model 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1, Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations Schedule, Revision 26, dated September 9, 2016, which specifies airworthiness life limits and inspection intervals for parts installed on Model 429 helicopters.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require cleaning and marking the helicopter's serial number on each forward spar P/N 429-031-213-103 and 429-031-213-104 and on each actuator fitting assembly P/N 429-031-222-101 and 429-031-222-102. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing any affected part on any helicopter unless is has been marked in accordance with this proposed AD.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Transport Canada AD

    The Transport Canada AD requires compliance within 12 months from its effective date, unless already accomplished. This proposed AD would require compliance within 800 hours time in service.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 6 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. We estimate that marking the forward spars and actuator fitting assemblies would require 1 work-hour and no parts would be needed. Based on these estimates, we expect a total cost of $85 per helicopter and $510 for the U.S. fleet.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Docket No. FAA-2017-0757; Product Identifier 2017-SW-022-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters, serial number (S/N) 57150, 57168, 57176, 57210 through 57216, 57265, 57266, 57267, and 57287, with a forward spar part number (P/N) 429-031-213-103 or 429-031-213-104 or actuator fitting assembly P/N 429-031-222-101 or 429-031-222-102 installed, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a forward spar or actuator fitting assembly remaining in service after reaching its life limit. This condition could result in failure of a forward spar or actuator fitting assembly and subsequent collapse of the landing gear.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 27, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 800 hours time-in-service, clean and identify each forward spar and actuator fitting assembly with the helicopter serial number in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3 through 5 and with reference to Figure 1 of Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 429-16-34, dated November 10, 2016.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a forward spar P/N 429-031-213-103 or 429-031-213-104 or actuator fitting assembly P/N 429-031-222-101 or 429-031-222-102 on any helicopter unless it has been marked with a serial number in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Helene Gandy, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5413; email [email protected]

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

    (g) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Helicopter Model 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1, Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations Schedule, Revision 26, dated September 9, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2017-02, dated January 16, 2017. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 1100, Placards and Markings.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 12, 2018. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01194 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0036; Product Identifier 2017-SW-015-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 212, Model 412, and Model 412EP helicopters. This proposed AD would require replacing the emergency flotation system (EFS) tube assembly. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of an EFS tube assembly failure. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these helicopters.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0036; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280-3391; fax (817) 280-6466; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rory Rieger, Aviation Safety Engineer, DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5193; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Bell Model 212, Model 412, and Model 412EP helicopters with an EFS tube assembly part number (P/N) 412-073-820-101 with a date of manufacture before July 28, 2016. This proposed AD is prompted by a report from Bell that an EFS tube assembly separated from the valve during a 2-year inflation test. A subsequent investigation found that excessive sleeve preset force during manufacturing caused cracks in the sleeve of the tube assembly, which may result in the EFS float failing to deploy. Bell determined that only those EFS tube assemblies with P/N 412-073-820-101 that were shipped prior to July 28, 2016, were subject to this manufacturing defect. Bell states that because this manufacturing defect is difficult to detect, affected EFS tube assemblies in service must be replaced. The affected parts were associated with a single Bell supplier that is no longer manufacturing the tube assembly.

    Accordingly, this proposed AD would require replacing the EFS tube assemblies and would prohibit installing an affected EFS tube assembly on any helicopter. We are proposing this AD to prevent installing a cracked EFS tube assembly, which could result in failure of the EFS floats to deploy during an emergency water landing.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 212-11-143 and ASB 412-11-147, both Revision C and dated December 22, 2016. Each ASB describes and illustrates procedures to replace the tube assembly within 600 flight hours or by March 31, 2017.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), replacing any EFS tube assembly P/N 412-073-820-101 that was manufactured before July 28, 2016. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an EFS tube assembly P/N 412-073-820-101 that was manufactured before July 28, 2016 on any helicopter.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The ASBs require compliance within 600 flight hours or by March 31, 2017; this proposed AD would require compliance within 300 hours TIS.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 250 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, replacing a tube assembly would require about 6 work-hours and required parts would cost $4,902, for a total cost of $5,412 per helicopter and $1,353,000 for the U.S. fleet.

    According to Bell's service information, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Bell. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0036; Product Identifier 2017-SW-015-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 212, Model 412, and Model 412EP helicopters, certificated in any category, with an emergency flotation system (EFS) tube assembly part number (P/N) 412-073-820-101 with a date of manufacture before July 28, 2016, or an unknown date of manufacture installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on an EFS tube assembly. This condition could result in failure of the emergency floats to inflate during an emergency water landing.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 27, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 300 hours time-in-service:

    (i) Remove the EFS tube assembly from service.

    (ii) Lubricate the shoulder of the sleeves, threads, and seat of each mating fitting with anti-seize compound.

    (iii) Install an EFS tube assembly not listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an EFS tube assembly listed in paragraph (a) of this AD on any helicopter.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Rory Rieger, Aviation Safety Engineer, DSCO Branch, AIR-7J0, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5193; email [email protected]

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

    (g) Additional Information

    Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins 212-11-143 and 412-11-147, both Revision C and dated December 22, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280-3391; fax (817) 280-6466; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3212 Emergency Flotation Section.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 12, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01195 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 600 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-7007] RIN 0910-AH49 Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products; Companion to Direct Final Rule AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is proposing to amend the general biologics regulations relating to time of inspection requirements and also removing duties of inspector requirements. FDA is proposing this action to remove outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections. This action is part of FDA's implementation of Executive Orders (EOs) 13771 and 13777. Under these EOs, FDA is comprehensively reviewing existing regulations to identify opportunities for repeal, replacement, or modification that will result in meaningful burden reduction while allowing the Agency to achieve our public health mission and fulfill statutory obligations.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule or its companion direct final rule by April 11, 2018. If FDA receives any timely significant adverse comments on the direct final rule with which this proposed rule is associated, the Agency will publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule within 30 days after the comment period ends. FDA will apply any significant adverse comments received on the direct final rule to the proposed rule in developing the final rule. FDA will then proceed to respond to comments under this proposed rule using the usual notice and comment procedures.

    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 April 11, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 11, 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-2017-N-7007 for “Removal of Certain Time of Inspection and Duties of Inspector Regulations for Biological Products.” 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:

    Melissa Segal, 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. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

    FDA is proposing to amend the general biologics regulations relating to time of inspection requirements and to remove duties of inspector requirements. FDA is proposing this action to remove outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections.

    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would revise the time of inspection requirements contained in § 600.21 (21 CFR 600.21) and also remove the duties of inspector requirements contained in § 600.22 (21 CFR 600.22). These changes to the biological product regulations would eliminate outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections. Revision and removal of these regulations would not change the biological product establishment inspection requirements and duties of an investigator requirements that apply under sections 704 and 510(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 374 and 360(h)) and section 351(c) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(c)).

    C. Legal Authority

    FDA is proposing this action under the biological product provisions of the PHS Act, and the drugs and general administrative provisions of the FD&C Act, including sections 704 and 510(h) of the FD&C Act and section 351(c) of the PHS Act.

    D. Costs and Benefits

    Because this proposed rule would not impose any additional regulatory burdens, this regulation is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

    II. Companion Document to Direct Final Rulemaking

    This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule published in the rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. This companion proposed rule provides the procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event that the direct final rule receives any significant adverse comment and is withdrawn. The comment period for this companion proposed rule runs concurrently with the comment period for the direct final rule. Any comments received in response to this companion proposed rule will also be considered as comments regarding the direct final rule. FDA is publishing the direct final rule because we believe the rule contains noncontroversial changes and there is little likelihood that there will be significant adverse comments opposing the rule.

    A significant adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants terminating a direct final rulemaking, we will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a regulation change in addition to those in the direct final rule would not be considered a significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to a part of the direct final rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of the significant adverse comment.

    If any significant adverse comments to the direct final rule are received during the comment period, FDA will publish, within 30 days after the comment period ends, a notice of significant adverse comment and withdraw the direct final rule. If we withdraw the direct final rule, any comments received will be considered comments on the proposed rule and will be considered in developing a final rule using the usual notice-and-comment procedure.

    If no significant adverse comment is received in response to the direct final rule during the comment period, no further action will be taken related to this proposed rule. Instead, we will publish a document confirming the effective date within 30 days after the comment period ends. Additional information about direct final rulemaking procedures is set forth in the document entitled “Guidance for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures,” announced and provided in the Federal Register of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466). The guidance may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125166.htm.

    III. Background

    On February 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (82 FR 12285, March 1, 2017). One of the provisions in the Executive Order requires Agencies to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. As one step in implementing the Executive Order, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register of September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42492) entitled “Review of Existing Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Regulatory and Information Collection Requirements.” In that notice, FDA announced that it was conducting a review of existing regulations to determine, in part, whether they can be made more effective in light of current public health needs and to take advantage of, and support, advances in innovation that have occurred since those regulations took effect. As part of this initiative, FDA is updating outdated regulations as specified in this rule.

    FDA's general biological products regulations in part 600 (21 CFR part 600) are intended to help ensure the safety, purity, and potency of biological products administered to humans. The proposed revision and removal of certain general biological products regulations are designed to eliminate outdated requirements and accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for drug establishments and provide flexibility without diminishing public health protections.

    A. Section 600.21

    The authority for FDA to conduct establishment inspections is included in both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act. Specifically, section 704 of the FD&C Act and section 351(c) of the PHS Act authorize the Agency to inspect establishments that manufacture biological products. Before July 9, 2012—the date the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144) was signed into law—section 510(h) of the FD&C Act further provided, among other things, that drug and device establishments registered with FDA must be inspected at least once in the 2-year period beginning with the date of registration and at least once in every successive 2-year period thereafter. Section 510(h) of the FD&C Act applies to biological product establishments because all biological products are subject to regulation under the drug or device provisions of the FD&C Act (in addition to the biological product provisions of the PHS Act). Since 1983, FDA's biological product regulation at § 600.21 has also included a biennial inspection requirement (“[A]n inspection of each licensed establishment and its additional location(s) shall be made at least once every 2 years”); this was consistent with the pre-FDASIA biennial inspection requirement in section 510(h) of the FD&C Act.

    With the enactment of FDASIA, however, the biennial inspection requirement for drug establishments in section 510(h) of the FD&C Act was replaced with a requirement that FDA inspect drug establishments in accordance with a risk-based schedule established by FDA. Accordingly, for biological product establishments that are registered as drug establishments under section 510(h), the requirement in § 600.21 regarding the frequency of inspections is no longer consistent with the FD&C Act and is outdated (e.g., the risk-based inspection schedule for drug establishments may result in scheduling inspections at intervals of greater than 2 years for certain biological product establishments). For this reason, and to provide for greater flexibility in general with respect to determining the frequency of biological product establishment inspections under the authority provided in the FD&C Act and the PHS Act, FDA proposes to revise § 600.21 to remove the biennial inspection requirement for biological product establishments that are registered as drug establishments and for those that are registered as device establishments.

    In addition, § 600.21 includes provisions concerning inspectional notice and the timing of pre-licensure reinspections of biological product establishments. These provisions are outdated and unnecessary. Inspectional notice is addressed in the Agency's practices for inspections in its Standard Operating Procedures and Policies and in the Investigations Operations Manual (IOM). With respect to the timing of a reinspection of a biological product establishment following the denial of a biologics license application, the general biologics licensing provision at 21 CFR 601.4, which was issued subsequent to § 600.21, sets forth the administrative procedures following the denial of a license; accordingly, the specific provision in § 600.21 regarding timing of a reinspection following denial of a license is unnecessary. Therefore, FDA is proposing to remove these provisions.

    B. Section 600.22

    Current § 600.22 requires specific duties of an FDA inspector. These existing codified requirements are unnecessary because they are duplicative of statutory requirements that apply to biological product inspections under section 704 of the FD&C Act. Specifically, the inspection requirements in section 704 of the FD&C Act encompass all of the requirements outlined in § 600.22. Thus, we are proposing to remove § 600.22(a) through (h).

    The removal of these regulations, however, would not change the establishment inspection requirements and duties of an investigator requirements specified in sections 704 and 510(h) of the FD&C Act, section 351(c) of the PHS Act, or the procedures described in the IOM. Additionally, it would not change the established process for risk-based inspection planning and work planning.

    IV. Highlights of the Proposed Rule

    FDA is proposing to amend the general biologics regulations by revising time of inspection requirements contained in § 600.21 and also by removing the duties of inspector requirements contained in § 600.22. These proposed changes are designed to remove the existing codified requirements that are outdated and to accommodate new approaches, such as a risk-based inspection frequency for biological product establishments, thereby providing flexibility without diminishing public health protections.

    V. Legal Authority

    FDA is issuing this proposed rule under the biological products provisions of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264, and 300aa-25) and the drugs and general administrative provisions of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356c, 356e, 360, 360i, 371, 374, and 379k-l). Under these provisions of the PHS Act and the FD&C Act, we have the authority to issue and enforce regulations designed to ensure that biological products are safe, pure, and potent, and prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease.

    VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” We believe that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule does not impose any additional regulatory burdens, we propose to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

    This proposed rule proposes amendments to the general biologics regulations by removing time of inspection requirements and the duties of inspector requirements. FDA is proposing this action to remove outdated requirements, accommodate new approaches, and provide flexibility without diminishing public health protections. Because this rulemaking proposes removal of regulations to be consistent with updated practice and does not impose any additional regulatory burdens, this proposed rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

    VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.31(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    VIII. Federalism

    We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects 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. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 600

    Biologics, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 600 be amended as follows:

    PART 600—BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356c, 356e, 360, 360i, 371, 374, 379k-l; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, 264, 300aa-25.

    § 600.21 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 600.21 by removing the last three sentences.
    § 600.22 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve § 600.22. Dated: January 23, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01467 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 3280, 3282, and 3285 [Docket No. FR-6075-N-01] Regulatory Review of Manufactured Housing Rules AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments on regulatory review.

    SUMMARY:

    Consistent with Executive Order 13771 entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13777 entitled, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and as part of the efforts of HUD's Regulatory Reform Task Force, this document informs the public that HUD is reviewing its existing and planned manufactured housing regulatory actions to assess their actual and potential compliance costs and reduce regulatory burden. HUD invites public comment to assist in identifying regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective or excessively burdensome and should be modified, streamlined, replaced or repealed.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title.

    Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled in advance by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ariel Pereira, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10282, Washington DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-5138 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    Under the leadership of Secretary Carson, HUD has undertaken an effort, consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339), entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” to identify and eliminate or streamline regulations that are wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. Executive Order 13771 requires that agencies manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward this end, Executive Order 13771 directs that for each new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination and requires that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled. In furtherance of this objective, the Secretary has also led HUD's implementation of Executive Order 13777 (82 FR 12285), entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” Executive Order 13777 reaffirms the rulemaking principles of Executive Order 13771 by directing each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations to identify those that merit repeal, replacement, modification, are outdated, unnecessary, or are ineffective, eliminate or inhibit job creation, impose costs that exceed benefits, or derive from or implement Executive Orders that have been rescinded or significantly modified.

    II. This Notice

    Manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting the nation's affordable housing needs, providing 9.5 percent of the total single-family housing stock.1 According to the Manufactured Housing Institute,2 more than 22 million Americans reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes are particularly important in rural states, where manufactured homes are approximately 16.2 percent of occupied housing units. The manufactured housing industry is also an important economic engine, accounting for approximately 35,000 jobs nationwide.

    1 American Housing Survey, 2013. Available at:

    http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=AHS_2013_C01AH&prodType=table.

    2http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/research-and-data/.

    HUD regulation of manufactured housing fulfills a critical role of both protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and efficient market. HUD may adopt, revise, and interpret HUD's manufactured housing program regulations based on recommendations of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, a statutory Federal Advisory Committee body.3 Given the significant role that manufactured housing plays in providing affordable housing, HUD has determined that it should undertake a substantive review of all current and planned federal regulation of manufactured housing. This review is intended to ensure that HUD can more effectively meet its responsibilities to facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes and encourage innovation and cost-effective construction techniques for manufactured housing while continuing to protect consumers by ensuring quality, durable, safe and affordable manufactured homes.

    3See HUD, Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/rmra/mhs/cc1.

    In conducting this review, HUD believes that it would benefit from information and perspectives among state, local and tribal officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole. HUD is, therefore, requesting comment on all current and planned regulatory actions affecting manufactured housing. HUD specifically seeks comment on:

    • Rules listed in its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions regulations, including rules to update its Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (FR-5739), and exempt Recreational Vehicles from its Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (FR-5787).

    • How HUD should proceed with its Interpretative Bulletin that provides guidance for designing and installing manufactured home foundations in areas subject to freezing temperatures with seasonal ground freezing.

    • The effectiveness of HUD's on-site completion of construction regulations, its Subpart I notification and corrections procedures, and its Alternative Construction approval process, both overall and specifically in review of manufactured homes with a carport-ready design or any other similar design that would permit the construction of an add-on at the final home site, that is not structurally independent from the home's structure, support and anchoring systems.

    HUD does not anticipate moving forward with any manufactured housing program regulations pending completion of its review. HUD may make exceptions, however, on individual rules based on policy priorities or revised circumstances.

    To assist in the formulation of comments, HUD encourages commenters to consider how HUD's manufactured housing regulatory agenda may be streamlined to reduce or eliminate costs and overall burden while ensuring that HUD can continue to meet its statutory responsibilities under the Manufactured Home construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), as amended.

    Dated: January 8, 2018. Dana T. Wade, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01276 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 60, and 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0510; FRL-9972-22-OAR] RIN 2060-AS95 Revisions to Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes corrections and updates to regulations for source testing of emissions. The proposed rule includes corrections to testing provisions that contain inaccuracies, updates to outdated procedures, and approved alternative procedures that provide testers enhanced flexibility. The revisions will improve the quality of data but will not impose new substantive requirements on source owners or operators.

    DATES:

    Comments. Written comments must be received by March 27, 2018.

    Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this rule if requested. Requests for a hearing must be made by February 5, 2018. Requests for a hearing should be made to Mrs. Lula H. Melton via email at [email protected] or by phone at (919) 541-2910. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on February 26, 2018 at EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0510 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed on the website, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Lula H. Melton, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division (E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2910; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The supplementary information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What action is the agency taking? II. Background III. Summary of Proposed Amendments A. Method 201A of Appendix M of Part 51 B. Method 204 of Appendix M of Part 51 C. Method 205 of Appendix M of Part 51 D. General Provisions (Subpart A) of Part 60 E. Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators (Subpart D) Part 60 F. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Subpart Da) Part 60 G. Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Subpart Db) Part 60 H. Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Subpart Dc) Part 60 I. Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After December 20, 1989 and on or Before September 20, 1994 (Subpart Ea) Part 60 J. Glass Manufacturing Plants (Subpart CC) Part 60 K. New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (Subpart QQQQ) Part 60 L. Method 2B of Appendix A-1 of Part 60 M. Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of Part 60 N. Method 5B of Appendix A-3 of Part 60 O. Method 5I of Appendix A-3 of Part 60 P. Method 7 of Appendix A-4 of Part 60 Q. Method 8 of Appendix A-4 of Part 60 R. Method 18 of Appendix A-6 of Part 60 S. Method 22 of Appendix A-7 of Part 60 T. Method 26 of Appendix A-8 of Part 60 U. Method 26A of Appendix A-8 of Part 60 V. Test Method 28WHH of Appendix A-8 of Part 60 W. Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B of Part 60 X. Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B of Part 60 Y. Performance Specification 3 of Appendix B of Part 60 Z. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60 AA. Performance Specification 15 of Appendix B of Part 60 BB. Performance Specification 18 of Appendix B of Part 60 CC. Procedure 1 of Appendix F of Part 60 DD. General Provisions (Subpart A) of Part 63 EE. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) Part 63 FF. Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Subpart DDDDD) Part 63 GG. Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Subpart UUUUU) Part 63 HH. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63 II. Method 308 of Appendix A of Part 63 JJ. Method 320 of Appendix A of Part 63 KK. Method 323 of Appendix A of Part 63 LL. Method 325A of Appendix A of Part 63 MM. Method 325B of Appendix A of Part 63 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    The proposed amendments apply to industries that are subject to the current provisions of parts 51, 60, and 63. We did not list all of the specific affected industries or their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes herein since there are many affected sources in numerous NAICS categories. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.

    B. What action is the agency taking?

    This action makes corrections and revisions to source test methods, performance specifications (PS), quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures, and testing regulations. The corrections and revisions consist primarily of typographical errors, updates to testing procedures, and the addition of alternative equipment and methods the Agency has deemed acceptable to use.

    II. Background

    The EPA catalogs errors and corrections, as well as necessary revisions to test methods, PS, QA/QC procedures, and associated regulations in 40 CFR parts 51, 60, and 63 and periodically updates and revises these provisions. The most recent updates and revisions were promulgated on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59800). This proposed rule addresses necessary corrections and revisions identified subsequent to that final action, many of which were brought to our attention by regulated sources and end-users, such as environmental consultants and compliance professionals. These revisions will improve the quality of data obtained and give source testers the flexibility to use newly-approved alternative procedures.

    III. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    The following amendments are being proposed.

    A. Method 201A of Appendix M of Part 51

    In Method 201A, in section 12.5, the denominator of equation 24 would be corrected.

    B. Method 204 of Appendix M of Part 51

    In Method 204, in section 8.2, the statement regarding equation 204-2 would be corrected to “The NEAR must be ≤0.05.”

    C. Method 205 of Appendix M of Part 51

    In Method 205, section 2.1.1 would be revised to allow the use of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable transfer standards to calibrate the gas dilution system because these standards are widely available and provide the accuracy necessary to perform the calibration. Section 2.1.1 would also be revised to require testers to report the results of the calibration of the dilution system to enable the regulatory authority to review this information.

    D. General Provisions (Subpart A) of Part 60

    In the General Provisions of part 60, section 60.17(h) would be revised to add American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6216-12 to the list of incorporations by reference and to re-number the remaining consensus standards that are incorporated by reference in alpha-numeric order.

    E. Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators (Subpart D) Part 60

    In subpart D, the allowed filter temperature in section 60.46(b)(2)(i) would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    F. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Subpart Da) Part 60

    In subpart Da, the allowed filter temperature in section 60.50Da (b)(1)(ii)(A) would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    G. Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Subpart Db) Part 60

    In subpart Db, the allowed filter temperature in section 60.46b(d)(4) would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    H. Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Subpart Dc) Part 60

    In subpart Dc, the allowed filter temperature in section 60.45c(a)(5) would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    I. Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction Is Commenced After December 20, 1989 and on or Before September 20, 1994 (Subpart Ea) Part 60

    In subpart Ea, the allowed filter temperature in section 60.58a(b)(3) would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    J. Glass Manufacturing Plants (Subpart CC) Part 60

    In subpart CC, the allowed filter temperature in section 60.293(f) would be revised from 120 ±14 °C to 120 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable particulate matter (PM) measurements. The allowed filter temperature in section 60.296(d)(2) would be revised from 177 ±14 °C to 177 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    K. New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces Part 60

    In subpart QQQQ, in Method 28WHH, in section 13.5.1, equation 8 would be corrected.

    L. Method 2B of Appendix A-1 of Part 60

    In Method 2B, in section 12.1, the definition of ambient carbon dioxide concentration would be revised because the global monthly mean (CO2)a concentration varies over time. Also, a website link would be added to the definition.

    M. Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of Part 60

    The allowed filter temperature in Method 5, sections 2.0, 6.1.1.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.1.7, and 8.5 would be revised from 120 ±14 °C to 120 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements. Section 6.1.1.9 would be revised to allow the use of a single temperature sensor in lieu of two temperature sensors on the dry gas meter as allowed by Technical Information Document 19 (TID-19) and the approved broadly applicable alternative, ALT-117 (see https://www.epa.gov/emc).

    N. Method 5B of Appendix A-3 of Part 60

    The allowed filter temperature in Method 5B, sections 2.0, 6.1, and 8.2 would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements. Section 11.0 would be revised to replace the reference to Method 5, section 11.0 with specific analytical procedures and to report the results using Figure 5B-1 for complete data review. Section 17.0 would be revised to delete the word “Reserved” from the title, and Figure 5B-1 (Analytical Data Sheet) would be added.

    O. Method 5I of Appendix A-3 of Part 60

    In Method 5I, sections 2.1 and 8.5.2.2 would be revised to tighten the allowed filter temperature from 120 ±14 °C to 120 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    P. Method 7 of Appendix A-4 of Part 60

    In Method 7, sections 10.1.2 and 11.3 reference erroneous sections; the correct sections would be inserted.

    Q. Method 8 of Appendix A-4 of Part 60

    In Method 8, sections 6.1.1.1 through 6.1.1.4 would be renumbered to 6.1.1.2 through 6.1.1.5; a new section 6.1.1.1 would be added to clarify the requirements that apply to the probe nozzle; and Figure 8-1 (Sulfuric Acid Sampling Train) would be corrected.

    R. Method 18 of Appendix A-6 of Part 60

    In Method 18, in section 13.1, the erroneous paragraph (c) designation would be re-designated as (b).

    S. Method 22 of Appendix A-7 of Part 60

    In Method 22, sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 would be revised to allow digital photography to be used for a subset of the recordkeeping requirements. Section 11.2.3 would be added to allow digital photographic records. Note that ALT-109 (see https://www.epa.gov/emc) is the associated broadly applicable alternative that allows the use of digital photographs for specific recordkeeping requirements.

    T. Method 26 of Appendix A-8 of Part 60

    In Method 26, section 6.2.2 would be revised to allow the use of glass sample storage containers as an option to allow flexibility and to be consistent with Method 26A.

    U. Method 26A of Appendix A-8 of Part 60

    In Method 26A, section 6.2.1 would be revised to remove the language regarding sample storage containers. We have determined that high-density polyethylene is an acceptable material for sample storage containers in addition to the currently allowed glass. Therefore, we would allow both high-density polyethylene and glass in a new section 6.2.4.

    V. Test Method 28WHH of Appendix A-8 of Part 60

    In Test Method 28WHH, equation 8 in section 13.5.1 would be corrected.

    W. Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B of Part 60

    In Performance Specification 1, references to ASTM D6216-98 (in sections 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 8.1(1), 8.1(3)(ii), 8.2(1), 8.2(2), 8.2(3), 9.0, 12.1, 13.1, 13.2, and 16.0 reference 8. will be replaced with ASTM D6216-12. Note: If the initial certification of the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) has already occurred using D6216-98, D6216-03, or D6216-07, it will not be necessary to recertify using D6216-12.

    X. Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B of Part 60

    In Performance Specification 2, section 13.2 would be replaced with a table that indicates the relative accuracy performance specifications.

    Y. Performance Specification 3 of Appendix B of Part 60

    In Performance Specification 3, the two sentences in section 12.0 that read, “Calculate the arithmetic difference between the RM and the CEMS output for each run. The average difference of the nine (or more) data sets constitute the RA.” would be deleted; these two sentences are no longer necessary since equations 3-1 and 3-2 would be moved from section 13.2 to section 12.0.

    Z. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60

    In Performance Specification 11, section 13.1, the word “average” erroneously exists in the second sentence and would be deleted.

    AA. Performance Specification 15 of Appendix B of Part 60

    In Performance Specification 15, section 13.0 would be added as “Method Performance (Reserved).”

    BB. Performance Specification 18 of Appendix B of Part 60

    In Performance Specification 18, in section 11.8.7, the last sentence would be revised to clarify the duration of the drift check. In Table 1, the erroneous acronym “NO2” would be replaced with “NO.” In the appendix of Performance Specification 18, the inadvertently omitted reserved section 12.0 would be added.

    CC. Procedure 1 of Appendix F of Part 60

    In Procedure 1, in section 5.1.2 (1), the sentence immediately following the table that reads, “Challenge the CEMS three times at each audit point, and use the average of the three responses in determining accuracy.” would be replaced with, “Inject each of the audit gases, three times each for a total of six injections. Inject the gases in such a manner that the entire CEMS is challenged. Do not inject the same gas concentration twice in succession.” In section 5.1.2 (3), the reference to EPA's traceability protocol for gaseous calibration standards would be updated, and the language regarding the use of EPA Method 205 for dilution of audit gases would be clarified.

    DD. General Provisions (Subpart A) of Part 63

    Sections 63.7(g)(2), 63.7(g)(2)(v), and 63.8(e)(5)(i) of the General Provisions (subpart A) of part 63 would be revised to require the reporting of specific test data for continuous monitoring system performance evaluation tests and ongoing QA tests. These data elements would be required regardless of the format of the report, i.e., electronic or paper. These modifications will ensure that performance evaluation and quality assurance test reporting include all data necessary for the compliance authority to assess and assure the quality of the reported data and that the reported information describes and identifies the specific unit covered by the evaluation test report.

    EE. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) Part 63

    In subpart NNN, the allowed filter temperature in § 63.1385(a)(5) would be revised from 120 ±14 °C to 120 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements.

    FF. Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Subpart DDDDD) Part 63

    In Table 6 of subpart DDDDD, row 1.f. would be revised to allow the use of EPA SW-846-7471B (for liquid samples) in addition to EPA SW-846-7470A for measuring mercury to allow flexibility.

    GG. Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Subpart UUUUU) Part 63

    In subpart UUUUU, the allowed filter temperature in § 63.10010(h)(7)(i)(1) would be revised from 160 ±14 °C to 160 ±5 °C resulting in increased precision of the filterable PM measurements. In Table 5, Method 5I would be allowed as a test method option because Method 5I is designed for low PM application.

    HH. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 303, section 12.4, equation 303-3 would be corrected by inserting “where y = ” in front of the equation.

    II. Method 308 of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 308, deionized distilled water would replace the aqueous n-proponal solution; the affected sections are 2.0, 7.2.2, 7.2.3.3, and 11.3.2. Section 7.2.2, which defines the aqueous n-proponal solution, would be removed. Section 8.1.2 would be revised to require a leak check prior to the sampling run (in addition to after the sampling run) for QA purposes; requiring a leak check prior to the sampling run would potentially save time and money. In section 9.1, methanol spike recovery check would be added as a QC measure in Table 9.1. In section 12.1, variables used in equations 308-4 and 308-5 would be added and section 12.5, which includes equations 308-4 and 308-5, would be added. In section 13.0, the title “Reserved” would be replaced with “Method Performance” and QA requirements would be added to be consistent with other methods.

    JJ. Method 320 of Appendix A of Part 63

    In section 8.2.2.4, the denominator in equation 2 would be corrected from PSS to PS. In section 9.2.3, the word “where” in the statement “Calculate the dilution ratio using the tracer gas as follows: where:” would be deleted. Also in section 9.2.3, “dir” on the definition of spike is inadvertently superscripted and would be subscripted.

    KK. Method 323 of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 323, section 12.9, the denominator in equation 323-8 would be corrected.

    LL. Method 325A of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 325A, section 8.2.1.3 would be revised to clarify that only one extra sampling site is required near known sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) when the source is within 50 meters of the boundary and the source is located between two monitors. The label under Figure 8.1 would be corrected from Refinery (20% angle) to Refinery (20° angle). Section 8.2.3.2 would be revised to include facilities with a monitoring perimeter length equal to 7,315 meters (24,000 feet). Section 8.2.3.3 would be added to provide clarification and an equivalent procedure in Option 2 (linear distance between sites) for site locations that parallel section 8.2.2.2.4 in Option 1 (radial distance between sites).

    MM. Method 325B of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 325B, section 9.3.2 would be revised to correct an error in the number of field blank samples required for a sampling period and to provide consistency with the sample analysis required in Method 325B. In sections 9.13 and 11.3.2.5, the erroneous reference to section 10.6.3 would be corrected to 10.0. Also in section 11.3.2.5, the erroneous reference to section 10.9.5 would be corrected to 9.13. Section 12.2.2 would be revised to correct the calculation of target compound concentrations at standard conditions. Sections 12.2.3 and 12.2.4 would be deleted because the equations for target concentrations are incorrect. Table 17-1 would be revised to add inadvertently omitted QC criteria from section 9.3.3.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by improving data quality and providing source testers the flexibility to use newly-approved alternative procedures.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. The amendments being proposed in this action to the test methods, performance specifications, and testing regulations do not substantively revise the existing information collection requirements but rather only make corrections and minor updates to existing testing methodology. In addition, the proposed amendments clarify performance testing requirements.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule will not impose emission measurement requirements beyond those specified in the current regulations, nor does it change any emission standard. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action would correct and update existing testing regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6216-12 for continuous opacity monitors in Performance Specification 1. The ASTM D6216-12 standard covers the procedure for certifying continuous opacity monitors and includes design and performance specifications, test procedures, and QA requirements to ensure that continuous opacity monitors meet minimum design and calibration requirements, necessary in part, for accurate opacity monitoring measurements in regulatory environmental opacity monitoring applications subject to 10 percent or higher opacity standards.

    The ASTM D6216-12 standard was developed and adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials. The standard may be obtained from http://www.astm.org or from the ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action would correct and update existing testing regulations.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    Dated: December 11, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Amend appendix M to part 51 as follows: a. Revise section 12.5, equation 24, in Method 201A. b. Revise the last sentence in section 8.2 in Method 204. c. Revise section 2.1.1 in Method 205.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix M to Part 51—Recommended Test Methods for State Implementation Plans Method 201A—Determination of PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions From Stationary Sources (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure)

    12.5 Equations. Use the following equations to complete the calculations required in this test method.

    Sampling Dwell Time at Each Point. Ntp is the total number of traverse points. You must use the preliminary velocity traverse data.

    EP26JA18.000 Method 204—Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure

    8.2 * * *

    The NEAR must be ≤0.05.

    Method 205—Verification of Gas Dilution Systems for Field Instrument Calibrations

    2.1.1 The gas dilution system shall be recalibrated once per calendar year using NIST-traceable flow standards with an uncertainty ≤0.25 percent. You shall report the results of the calibration by the person or manufacturer who carried out the calibration whenever the dilution system is used, listing the date of the most recent calibration, the due date for the next calibration, calibration point, reference flow device (ID, S/N), and acceptance criteria. Follow the manufacturer's instructions for the operation and use of the gas dilution system. A copy of the manufacturer's instructions for the operation of the instrument, as well as the most recent calibration documentation shall be made available for inspection at the test site.

    PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 3. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    4. In § 60.17: a. Redesignate paragraphs (h)(177) through (h)(209) as (h)(178) through (h)(210). b. Add new paragraph (h)(177).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 60.17 Incorporations by reference.

    (h) * * *

    (177) ASTM D6216-12, Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance Specifications, IBR approved for appendix B to part 60: Performance Specification 1.

    Subpart D—Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators 5. Revise § 60.46(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 60.46 Test methods and procedures.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf). The probe and filter holder heating systems in the sampling train shall be set to provide an average gas temperature of 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F).

    Subpart Da—Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 6. Revise § 60.50Da (b)(1)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
    § 60.50Da Compliance determination procedures and methods.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall be at least 120 minutes and 1.70 dscm (60 dscf). The probe and filter holder heating system in the sampling train may be set to provide an average gas temperature of no greater than 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F).

    Subpart Db—Standards of Performance for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units 7. Revise § 60.46b (d)(4) to read as follows:
    § 60.46b Compliance and performance test methods and procedures for particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

    (d) * * *

    (4) For Method 5 of appendix A of this part, the temperature of the sample gas in the probe and filter holder is monitored and is maintained at 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F).

    Subpart Dc—Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units 8. Revise § 60.45c(a)(5) to read as follows:
    § 60.45c Compliance and performance test methods and procedures for particulate matter.

    (a) * * *

    (5) For Method 5 or 5B of appendix A of this part, the temperature of the sample gas in the probe and filter holder shall be monitored and maintained at 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F).

    Subpart Ea—Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction Is Commenced After December 20, 1989 and On or Before September 20, 1994 9. Revise § 60.58a(b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 60.58a Compliance and performance testing.

    (b) * * *

    (3) Method 5 shall be used for determining compliance with the particulate matter emission limit. The minimum sample volume shall be 1.7 cubic meters (60 cubic feet). The probe and filter holder heating systems in the sample train shall be set to provide a gas temperature of 160° ±5 °C (320° ±9 °F). An oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement shall be obtained simultaneously with each Method 5 run.

    Subpart CC—Standards of Performance for Glass Manufacturing Plants 10. Revise § 60.293(f) to read as follows:
    § 60.293 Standards for particulate matter from glass melting furnace with modified-processes.

    (f) Test methods and procedures as specified in § 60.296 shall be used to determine compliance with this section except that to determine compliance for any glass melting furnace using modified processes and fired with either a gaseous fuel or a liquid fuel containing less than 0.50 weight percent sulfur, Method 5 shall be used with the probe and filter holder heating system in the sampling train set to provide a gas temperature of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F).

    11. Revise § 60.296(d)(2) to read as follows:
    § 60.296 Test methods and procedures.

    (d) * * *

    (2) Method 5 shall be used to determine the particulate matter concentration (cs) and volumetric flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf). The probe and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 177 ±5 °C (350 ±9 °F), except under the conditions specified in § 60.293(e).

    12. Revise “(CO2)a” in section 12.1 in Method 2B of appendix A-1 to part 60 to read as follows: Appendix A-1 to Part 60—Test Methods 1 Through 2F Method 2B—Determination of Exhaust Gas Volume Flow Rate From Gasoline Vapor Incinerators

    12.1 Nomenclature.

    (CO2)a = Ambient carbon dioxide concentration, ppm (if not measured during the test period, may be assumed to equal the global monthly mean CO2 concentration posted at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_data).
    13. In appendix A-3 to part 60: a. Revise sections 2.0, 6.1.1.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.1.7, 6.1.1.9, and 8.5 in Method 5. b. Revise sections 2.0, 6.1, 8.2, and 11.0 in Method 5B. c. Add section 17.0 in Method 5B. d. Revise sections 2.1 and 8.5.2.2 in Method 5I.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A-3 to Part 60—Test Methods 4 Through 5I Method 5—Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary Sources

    2.0 Summary of Method. Particulate matter is withdrawn isokinetically from the source and collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F) or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the Administrator for a particular application. The PM mass, which includes any material that condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is determined gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined water.

    6.1.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosilicate or quartz glass tubing with a heating system capable of maintaining a probe gas temperature during sampling of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F), or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of the standards or as approved by the Administrator for a particular application. Since the actual temperature at the outlet of the probe is not usually monitored during sampling, probes constructed according to APTD-0581 and utilizing the calibration curves of APTD-0576 (or calibrated according to the procedure outlined in APTD-0576) will be considered acceptable. Either borosilicate or quartz glass probe liners may be used for stack temperatures up to about 480 °C (900 °F); quartz glass liners shall be used for temperatures between 480 and 900 °C (900 and 1,650 °F). Both types of liners may be used at higher temperatures than specified for short periods of time, subject to the approval of the Administrator. The softening temperature for borosilicate glass is 820 °C (1500 °F), and for quartz glass it is 1500 °C (2700 °F). Whenever practical, every effort should be made to use borosilicate or quartz glass probe liners. Alternatively, metal liners (e.g., 316 stainless steel, Incoloy 825 or other corrosion resistant metals) made of seamless tubing may be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator.

    6.1.1.6 Filter Heating System. Any heating system capable of monitoring and maintaining temperature around the filter shall be used to ensure the sample gas temperature exiting the filter of 120 ± 5 °C (248 ±9 °F) during sampling or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the Administrator for a particular application. The monitoring and regulation of the temperature around the filter may be done with the filter temperature sensor or another temperature sensor.

    6.1.1.7 Filter Temperature Sensor. A temperature sensor capable of measuring temperature to within ±3 °C (5.4 °F) shall be installed so that the sensing tip of the temperature sensor is in direct contact with the sample gas exiting the filter. The sensing tip of the sensor may be encased in glass, Teflon, or metal and must protrude at least 1/2 in. into the sample gas exiting the filter. The filter temperature sensor must be monitored and recorded during sampling to ensure a sample gas temperature exiting the filter of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F), or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the Administrator for a particular application.

    6.1.1.9 Metering System. Vacuum gauge, leak-free pump, calibrated temperature sensors, dry gas meter (DGM) capable of measuring volume to within 2 percent, and related equipment, as shown in Figure 5-1. Other metering systems capable of maintaining sampling rates within 10 percent of isokinetic and of determining sample volumes to within 2 percent may be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator. When the metering system is used in conjunction with a pitot tube, the system shall allow periodic checks of isokinetic rates. The average DGM temperature for use in the calculations of Section 12.0 may be obtained by averaging the two temperature sensors located at the inlet and outlet of the DGM as shown in Figure 5-3 or alternatively from a single temperature sensor located at the immediate outlet of the DGM or the plenum of the DGM.

    8.5 Sampling Train Operation. During the sampling run, maintain an isokinetic sampling rate (within 10 percent of true isokinetic unless otherwise specified by the Administrator) and a sample gas temperature through the filter of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F) or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the Administrator. Note: After startup of the sampling system, it may take several minutes to equilibrate the system and temperature reading to within the required temperature threshold.

    Method 5B—Determination of Nonsulfuric Acid Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary Sources 2.0 Summary of Method

    Particulate matter is withdrawn isokinetically from the source and collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F). The collected sample is then heated in an oven at 160 °C (320 °F) for 6 hours to volatilize any condensed sulfuric acid that may have been collected, and the nonsulfuric acid particulate mass is determined gravimetrically.

    6.1 Sample Collection.

    The probe liner heating system and filter heating system must be capable of maintaining a sample gas temperature of 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F).

    8.2 Probe and Filter Temperatures.

    Maintain the probe outlet and filter temperatures at 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F). Note: After start-up of the sampling system, it may take several minutes to equilibrate the system and temperature reading to within the required temperature threshold.

    11.0 Analytical Procedure

    11.1 Record and report the data required on a sheet such as the one shown in Figure 5B-1.

    11.2 Handle each sample container as follows:

    11.2.1 Container No. 1. Leave the contents in the shipping container or transfer the filter and any loose PM from the sample container to a tared glass weighing dish. Oven dry the filter sample at a temperature of 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F) for 6 hours. Cool in a desiccator for 2 hours, and weigh to constant weight. Report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg. For the purposes of this section, the term “constant weight” means a difference of no more than 0.5 mg or 1 percent of total weight less tare weight, whichever is greater, between two consecutive weighings, with no less than 6 hours of desiccation time between weighings.

    11.2.2 Container No. 2. Note the level of liquid in the container, and confirm on the analysis sheet whether leakage occurred during transport. If a noticeable amount of leakage has occurred, either void the sample or use methods, subject to the approval of the Administrator, to correct the final results. Measure the liquid in this container either volumetrically to ±1 ml or gravimetrically to ±0.5 g. Transfer the contents to a tared 250 ml beaker, and evaporate to dryness at ambient temperature and pressure. Then oven dry the probe sample at a temperature of 160 ±5 °C (320 ±9 °F) for 6 hours. Cool in a desiccator for 2 hours, and weigh to constant weight. Report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.

    11.2.3 Container No. 3. Weigh the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g using a balance. This step may be conducted in the field.

    11.2.4 Acetone Blank Container. Measure the acetone in this container either volumetrically or gravimetrically. Transfer the acetone to a tared 250 ml beaker, and evaporate to dryness at ambient temperature and pressure. Desiccate for 24 hours, and weigh to a constant weight. Report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.

    Note:

    The contents of Container No. 2 as well as the acetone blank container may be evaporated at temperatures higher than ambient. If evaporation is done at an elevated temperature, the temperature must be below the boiling point of the solvent; also, to prevent “bumping,” the evaporation process must be closely supervised, and the contents of the beaker must be swirled occasionally to maintain an even temperature. Use extreme care, as acetone is highly flammable and has a low flash point.

    17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data Container number Weight of particulate collected, mg Final weight Tare weight Weight gain 1. 2. Total: Less acetone blank Weight of particulate matter Volume of liquid water collected Impinger volume, ml Silica gel weight, g Final Initial Liquid collected Total volume collected g* ml *Convert weight of water to volume by dividing total weight increase by density of water (1 g/ml). Figure 5B-1. Analytical Data Sheet Method 5I—Determination of Low Level Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources

    2.1. Description. The system setup and operation is essentially identical to Method 5. Particulate is withdrawn isokinetically from the source and collected on a 47 mm glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F). The PM mass is determined by gravimetric analysis after the removal of uncombined water. Specific measures in this procedure designed to improve system performance at low particulate levels include:

    1. Improved sample handling procedures 2. Light weight sample filter assembly 3. Use of low residue grade acetone

    Accuracy is improved through the minimization of systemic errors associated with sample handling and weighing procedures. High purity reagents, all glass, grease free, sample train components, and light weight filter assemblies and beakers, each contribute to the overall objective of improved precision and accuracy at low particulate concentrations.

    8.5.2.2 Care should be taken to maintain the filter box temperature of the paired trains as close as possible to the Method required temperature of 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F). If separate ovens are being used for simultaneously operated trains, it is recommended that the oven temperature of each train be maintained within ±5 °C (±9 °F) of each other. Note: After startup of the sampling system, it may take several minutes to equilibrate the system and temperature reading to within the required temperature threshold.

    14. In appendix A-4 to part 60: a. Revise sections 10.1.2 and 11.3 in Method 7. b. Redesignate sections 6.1.1.1 through 6.1.1.4 to read as sections 6.1.1.2 through 6.1.1.5 in Method 8. c. Add a new section 6.1.1.1 in Method 8. d. Revise Figure 8-1 in Method 8. Appendix A-4 to Part 60—Test Methods 6 Through 10B Method 7—Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Stationary Sources

    10.1.2 Determination of Spectrophotometer Calibration Factor Kc. Add 0 ml, 2.0 ml, 4.0 ml, 6.0 ml, and 8.0 ml of the KNO3 working standard solution (1 ml = 100 μg NO2) to a series of five 50-ml volumetric flasks. To each flask, add 25 ml of absorbing solution and 10 ml water. Add 1 N NaOH to each flask until the pH is between 9 and 12 (about 25 to 35 drops). Dilute to the mark with water. Mix thoroughly, and pipette a 25-ml aliquot of each solution into a separate porcelain evaporating dish. Beginning with the evaporation step, follow the analysis procedure of section 11.2 until the solution has been transferred to the 100-ml volumetric flask and diluted to the mark. Measure the absorbance of each solution at the optimum wavelength as determined in section 10.1.1.2. This calibration procedure must be repeated on each day that samples are analyzed. Calculate the spectrophotometer calibration factor as shown in section 12.2.

    11.3 Sample Analysis. Mix the contents of the flask thoroughly, and measure the absorbance at the optimum wavelength used for the standards (Section 10.1.1.2), using the blank solution as a zero reference. Dilute the sample and the blank with equal volumes of water if the absorbance exceeds A4, the absorbance of the 400-μg NO2 standard (see section 10.1.3).

    Method 8—Determination of Sulfuric Acid and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources

    6.1.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Borosilicate or quartz glass with a sharp, tapered leading edge and coupled to the probe liner using a Teflon union. When the stack temperature exceeds 210 °C (410 °F), a leak-free ground glass fitting or other leak free, non-contaminating fitting must be used to couple the nozzle to the probe liner. It is also acceptable to use a one-piece glass nozzle/liner assembly. The angle of the taper shall be >30°, and the taper shall be on the outside to preserve a constant internal diameter. The probe nozzle shall be of the button-hook or elbow design, unless otherwise specified by the Administrator. Other materials of construction may be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator. A range of nozzle sizes suitable for isokinetic sampling should be available. Typical nozzle sizes range from 0.32 to 1.27 cm (1/8 to 1/2 in) inside diameter (ID) in increments of 0.16 cm (1/16 in). Larger nozzles sizes are also available if higher volume sampling trains are used.

    6.1.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosilicate or quartz glass, with a heating system to prevent visible condensation during sampling. Do not use metal probe liners.

    6.1.1.3 Filter Holder. Borosilicate glass, with a glass frit filter support and a silicone rubber gasket. Other gasket materials (e.g., Teflon or Viton) may be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator. The holder design shall provide a positive seal against leakage from the outside or around the filter. The filter holder shall be placed between the first and second impingers. Do not heat the filter holder.

    6.1.1.4 Impingers. Four, of the Greenburg-Smith design, as shown in Figure 8-1. The first and third impingers must have standard tips. The second and fourth impingers must be modified by replacing the insert with an approximately 13-mm (1/2-in.) ID glass tube, having an unconstricted tip located 13 mm (1/2 in.) from the bottom of the impinger. Similar collection systems, subject to the approval of the Administrator, may be used.

    6.1.1.5  Temperature Sensor. Thermometer, or equivalent, to measure the temperature of the gas leaving the impinger train to within 1 °C (2 °F).

    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EP26JA18.001 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    15. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) in section 13.1 in Method 18 of appendix A-6 to part 60 to read as follows: Appendix A-6 to Part 60—Test Methods 16 Through 18 Method 18—Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography

    13.1 * * *

    (b) Recovery. After developing an appropriate sampling and analytical system for the pollutants of interest, conduct the procedure in section 8.4. Conduct the appropriate recovery study in section 8.4 at each sampling point where the method is being applied. Submit the data and results of the recovery procedure with the reporting of results under section 8.3.

    16. In appendix A-7 to part 60: a. Revise sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 in Method 22. b. Add section 11.2.3 in Method 22.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A-7 to Part 60—Test Methods 19 Through 25E Method 22—Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions From Material Sources and Smoke Emissions From Flares

    11.2.1 Outdoor Location. Record the following information on the field data sheet (Figure 22-1): Company name, industry, process unit, observer's name, observer's affiliation, and date. Record also the estimated wind speed, wind direction, and sky condition. Sketch the process unit being observed, and note the observer location relative to the source and the sun. Indicate the potential and actual emission points on the sketch. Alternatively, digital photography as described in Section 11.2.3 may be used for a subset of the recordkeeping requirements of this section.

    11.2.2 Indoor Location. Record the following information on the field data sheet (Figure 22-2): Company name, industry, process unit, observer's name, observer's affiliation, and date. Record as appropriate the type, location, and intensity of lighting on the data sheet. Sketch the process unit being observed, and note the observer location relative to the source. Indicate the potential and actual fugitive emission points on the sketch. Alternatively, digital photography as described in Section 11.2.3 may be used for a subset of the recordkeeping requirements of this section.

    11.2.3 Digital Photographic Records. Digital photographs, annotated or unaltered, may be used to record and report sky conditions, observer's location relative to the source, observer's location relative to the sun, process unit being observed, potential emission points and actual emission points for the requirements in Sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2. The image must have the proper lighting, field of view and depth of field to properly distinguish the sky condition (if applicable), process unit, potential emission point and actual emission point. At least one digital photograph must be from the point of the view of the observer. The photograph(s) representing the environmental conditions must be taken within reasonable time of the observation (i.e., 15 mins). Any photographs altered or annotated must be retained in an unaltered format for recordkeeping purposes.

    17. In appendix A-8 to part 60: a. Revise section 6.2.2 in Method 26. b. Revise section 6.2.1 in Method 26A. c. Add section 6.2.4 in Method 26A. d. Revise equation 8 in section 13.5.1 in Test Method 28WHH.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A-8 to Part 60—Test Methods 26 Through 30B Method 26—Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions From Stationary Sources Non-Isokinetic Method

    6.2.2 Storage Bottles. 100- or 250-ml, high-density polyethylene or glass sample storage containers with Teflon screw cap liners to store impinger samples.

    Method 26A—Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions From Stationary Sources Isokinetic Method

    6.2.1 Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle Brushes, Wash Bottles, Petri Dishes, Graduated Cylinder and/or Balance, and Rubber Policeman. Same as Method 5, sections 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, and 6.2.7.

    6.2.4 Sample Storage Containers. High-density polyethylene or glass sample storage containers with Teflon screw cap liners to store impinger samples.

    Test Method 28WHH for Measurement of Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances

    13.5.1 * * *

    EP26JA18.002
    18. In appendix B to part 60: a. Revise sections 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 8.1(1), 8.1(3)(ii), 8.2(1), 8.2(2), 8.2(3), 9.0, 12.1, 13.1, 13.2, and 16.0 8. in Performance Specification 1. b. Revise section 13.2 in Performance Specification 2. c. Revise sections 12.0 and 13.2 in Performance Specification 3. d. Revise section 13.1 in Performance Specification 11. e. Add section 13.0 in Performance Specification 15. f. Revise section 11.8.7 and table 1 in Performance Specification 18. g. Add section 12.0 to Appendix A of Performance Specification 18.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 60—Performance Specifications Performance Specification 1—Specifications and Test Procedures for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

    2.1 ASTM D6216-12 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17) is the reference for design specifications, manufacturer's performance specifications, and test procedures. The opacity monitor manufacturer must periodically select and test an opacity monitor, that is representative of a group of monitors produced during a specified period or lot, for conformance with the design specifications in ASTM D6216-12. The opacity monitor manufacturer must test each opacity monitor for conformance with the manufacturer's performance specifications in ASTM D6216-12. Note: If the initial certification of the opacity monitor occurred before January 26, 2018 using D6216-98, D6216-03, or D6216-07, it is not necessary to recertify using D6216-12.

    3.1 All definitions and discussions from section 3 of ASTM D6216-12 are applicable to PS-1.

    6.1 Continuous Opacity Monitoring System. You, as owner or operator, are responsible for purchasing an opacity monitor that meets the specifications of ASTM D6216-12, including a suitable data recorder or automated data acquisition handling system. Example data recorders include an analog strip chart recorder or more appropriately an electronic data acquisition and reporting system with an input signal range compatible with the analyzer output.

    8.1 * * *

    (1) You must purchase an opacity monitor that complies with ASTM D6216-12 and obtain a certificate of conformance from the opacity monitor manufacturer.

    (2) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) Calibration Error Check. Conduct a three-point calibration error test using three calibration attenuators that produce outlet pathlength corrected, single-pass opacity values shown in ASTM D6216-12, section 7.5. If your applicable limit is less than 10 percent opacity, use attenuators as described in ASTM D6216-12, section 7.5 for applicable standards of 10 to 19 percent opacity. Confirm the external audit device produces the proper zero value on the COMS data recorder. Separately, insert each calibration attenuators (low, mid, and high-level) into the external audit device. While inserting each attenuator, (1) ensure that the entire light beam passes through the attenuator, (2) minimize interference from reflected light, and (3) leave the attenuator in place for at least two times the shortest recording interval on the COMS data recorder. Make a total of five nonconsecutive readings for each attenuator. At the end of the test, correlate each attenuator insertion to the corresponding value from the data recorder. Subtract the single-pass calibration attenuator values corrected to the stack exit conditions from the COMS responses. Calculate the arithmetic mean difference, standard deviation, and confidence coefficient of the five measurements value using equations 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5. Calculate the calibration error as the sum of the absolute value of the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence coefficient for each of the three test attenuators using equation 1-6. Report the calibration error test results for each of the three attenuators.

    8.2 * * *

    (1) Conduct the verification procedures for design specifications in section 6 of ASTM D6216-12.

    (2) Conduct the verification procedures for performance specifications in section 7 of ASTM D6216-12.

    (3) Provide to the owner or operator, a report of the opacity monitor's conformance to the design and performance specifications required in sections 6 and 7 of ASTM D6216-12 in accordance with the reporting requirements of section 9 in ASTM D6216-12.

    9.0 What quality control measures are required by PS-1?

    Opacity monitor manufacturers must initiate a quality program following the requirements of ASTM D6216-12, section 8. The quality program must include (1) a quality system and (2) a corrective action program.

    12.1 Desired Attenuator Values. Calculate the desired attenuator value corrected to the emission outlet pathlength as follows:

    EP26JA18.003 Where: OP1 = Nominal opacity value of required low-, mid-, or high-range calibration attenuators. OP2 = Desired attenuator opacity value from ASTM D6216-12, section 7.5 at the opacity limit required by the applicable subpart. L1 = Monitoring pathlength. L2 = Emission outlet pathlength.

    13.1 Design Specifications. The opacity monitoring equipment must comply with the design specifications of ASTM D6216-12.

    13.2 Manufacturer's Performance Specifications. The opacity monitor must comply with the manufacturer's performance specifications of ASTM D6216-12.

    16.0 * * *

    8. ASTM D6216-12: Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance Specifications. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). April 1998.

    Performance Specification 2—Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

    13.2 Relative Accuracy Performance Specification.

    Calculate . . . RA criteria
  • (%)
  • If average emissions during the RATA are ≥50% of emission standard Use Eq. 2-6, with RM in the denominator <20.0 If average emissions during the RATA are <50% of emission standard Use Eq. 2-6, emission standard in the denominator <10.0 For SO2 emission standards <130 but> 86 ng/J (0.30 and 0.20 lb/million Btu) Use Eq. 2-6, emission standard in the denominator <15.0 For SO2 emission standards <86 ng/J (0.20 lb/million Btu) Use Eq. 2-6, emission standard in the denominator <20.0
    Performance Specification 3—Specifications and Test Procedures for O2 and CO2 Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources 12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

    Summarize the results on a data sheet similar to that shown in Figure 2.2 of PS2.

    EP26JA18.004 EP26JA18.005

    13.2 CEMS Relative Accuracy Performance Specification. The RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 20.0 percent of the mean value of the reference method (RM) data when calculated using equation 3-1. The results are also acceptable if the result of Equation 3-2 is less than or equal to 1.0 percent O2 (or CO2).

    Performance Specification 11—Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    13.1 What is the 7-day drift check performance specification? Your daily PM CEMS internal drift checks must demonstrate that the daily drift of your PM CEMS does not deviate from the value of the reference light, optical filter, Beta attenuation signal, or other technology-suitable reference standard by more than 2 percent of the response range. If your CEMS includes diluent and/or auxiliary monitors (for temperature, pressure, and/or moisture) that are employed as a necessary part of this performance specification, you must determine the calibration drift separately for each ancillary monitor in terms of its respective output (see the appropriate performance specification for the diluent CEMS specification). None of the calibration drifts may exceed their individual specification.

    Performance Specification 15—Performance Specification for Extractive FTIR Continuous Emissions Monitor Systems in Stationary Sources 13.0 Method Performance [Reserved] Performance Specification 18—Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    11.8.7 The zero-level and mid-level CD for each day must be less than 5.0 percent of the span value as specified in section 13.2 of this PS. You must meet this criterion for 7 consecutive operating days.

    Table 1—Interference Test Gas Concentrations Potential interferent gas 1 Approximate concentration (balance N2) CO2 15% ± 1% CO2.2 CO 100 ± 20 ppm. CH2O 20 ± 5 ppm. CH4 100 ± 20 ppm. NH3 10 ± 5 ppm (extractive CEMS only). NO 250 ± 50 ppm. SO2 200 ± 20 ppm. O2 3% ± 1% O2.2 H2O 10% ± 1% H2O.2 N2 Balance.2 1 Any of these specific gases can be tested at a lower level if the manufacturer has provided reliable means for limiting or scrubbing that gas to a specified level in CEMS field installations. 2 Gases for short path IP cell interference tests cannot be added above 100 percent stack equivalent concentration. Add these gases at the indicated percentages to make up the remaining cell volume. PS-18 Appendix A—Standard Addition Procedures 12.0 Reserved
    19. Revise sections 5.1.2(1) and 5.1.2(3) in Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 to read as follows: Appendix F to Part 60—Quality Assurance Procedures Procedure 1—Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination

    5.1.2 Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA). If applicable, a CGA may be conducted in three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters in succession.

    To conduct a CGA: (1) Challenge the CEMS (both pollutant and diluent portions of the CEMS, if applicable) with an audit gas of known concentration at two points within the following ranges:

    Audit point Audit range Pollutant monitors Diluent monitors for— CO2 O2 1 20 to 30% of span value 5 to 8% by volume 4 to 6% by volume. 2 50 to 60% of span value 10 to 14% by volume 8 to 12% by volume.

    Inject each of the audit gases, three times each for a total of six injections. Inject the gases in such a manner that the entire CEMS is challenged. Do not inject the same gas concentration twice in succession.

    Use of separate audit gas cylinder for audit points 1 and 2. Do not dilute gas from audit cylinder when challenging the CEMS.

    The monitor should be challenged at each audit point for a sufficient period of time to assure adsorption-desorption of the CEMS sample transport surfaces has stabilized.

    (2) * * *

    (3) Use Certified Reference Materials (CRM's) (See Citation 1) audit gases that have been certified by comparison to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Materials (SRM's) or EPA Protocol Gases following the most recent edition of the EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards (See Citation 2). Procedures for preparation of CRM's are described in Citation 1. Procedures for preparation of EPA Protocol Gases are described in Citation 2. In the case that a suitable audit gas level is not commercially available, Method 205 (See Citation 3) may be used to dilute CRM's or EPA Protocol Gases to the needed level. The difference between the actual concentration of the audit gas and the concentration indicated by the monitor is used to assess the accuracy of the CEMS.

    PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 20. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    21. In § 63.7, revise paragraphs (g)(2) introductory text and (g)(2)(v) to read as follows:
    § 63.7 Performance testing requirements.

    (g) * * *

    (2) Contents of a performance test, CMS performance evaluation, or CMS quality assurance test report (electronic or paper submitted copy). Unless otherwise specified in a relevant standard, test method, CMS performance specification, or quality assurance requirement for a CMS, or as otherwise approved by the Administrator in writing, the report shall include the elements identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.

    (v) Where a test method, CMS performance specification, or on-going quality assurance requirement for a CMS requires you record or report, the following shall be included in your report: Record of preparation of standards, record of calibrations, raw data sheets for field sampling, raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses, chain-of-custody documentation, and example calculations for reported results.

    22. In § 63.8, revise paragraph (e)(5)(i) to read as follows:
    § 63.8 Monitoring requirements.

    (e) * * *

    (5) * * * (i) The owner or operator shall furnish the Administrator a copy of a written report of the results of the performance evaluation containing the information specified in § 63.7(g)(2)(i) through (vi) within 60 days of completion of the performance evaluation, unless otherwise specified in a relevant standard.

    Subpart NNN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 23. Revise § 63.1385(a)(5) to read as follows:
    § 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.

    (a) * * *

    (5) Method 5 or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) for the concentration of total PM. When using Method 5, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). When using Method 29, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 3 dscm. When measuring PM concentration using either Method 5 or 29, the probe and filter holder heating system must be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 120 ±5 °C (248 ±9 °F).

    Subpart DDDDD—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 24. Revise Table 6 to Subpart DDDDD of part 63 to read as follows: Table 6 to Subpart DDDDD of Part 63—Fuel Analysis Requirements [As stated in § 63.7521, you must comply with the following requirements for fuel analysis testing for existing, new or reconstructed affected sources. However, equivalent methods (as defined in § 63.7575) may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods at the discretion of the source owner or operator] To conduct a fuel analysis for the following pollutant . . . You must . . . Using . . . 1. Mercury a. Collect fuel samples Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D5192,a or ASTM D7430,a or ASTM D6883,a or ASTM D2234/D2234M a (for coal) or EPA 1631 or EPA 1631E or ASTM D6323 a (for solid), or EPA 821-R-01-013 (for liquid or solid), or ASTM D4177 a (for liquid), or ASTM D4057 a (for liquid), or equivalent. b. Composite fuel samples Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. c. Prepare composited fuel samples EPA SW-846-3050B a (for solid samples), ASTM D2013/D2013M a (for coal), ASTM D5198 a (for biomass), or EPA 3050 a (for solid fuel), or EPA 821-R-01-013 a (for liquid or solid), or equivalent. d. Determine heat content of the fuel type ASTM D5865 a (for coal) or ASTM E711 a (for biomass), or ASTM D5864 a for liquids and other solids, or ASTM D240 a or equivalent. e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type ASTM D3173,a ASTM E871,a or ASTM D5864,a or ASTM D240, or ASTM D95 a (for liquid fuels), or ASTM D4006 a (for liquid fuels), or equivalent. f. Measure mercury concentration in fuel sample ASTM D6722 a (for coal), EPA SW-846-7471B a or EPA 1631 or EPA 1631E (for solid samples), or EPA SW-846-7470A a or EPA SW-846-7471B a (for liquid samples), or EPA 821-R-01-013 (for liquid or solid), or equivalent. g. Convert concentration into units of pounds of mercury per MMBtu of heat content For fuel mixtures use Equation 8 in § 63.7530. 2. HCl a. Collect fuel samples Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D5192,a or ASTM D7430,a or ASTM D6883,a or ASTM D2234/D2234M a (for coal) or ASTM D6323 a (for coal or biomass), ASTM D4177 a (for liquid fuels) or ASTM D4057 a (for liquid fuels), or equivalent. b. Composite fuel samples Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. c. Prepare composited fuel samples EPA SW-846-3050B a (for solid samples), ASTM D2013/D2013M a (for coal), or ASTM D5198 a (for biomass), or EPA 3050 a or equivalent. d. Determine heat content of the fuel type ASTM D5865 a (for coal) or ASTM E711 a (for biomass), ASTM D5864, ASTM D240 a or equivalent. e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type ASTM D3173 a or ASTM E871,a or D5864,a or ASTM D240,a or ASTM D95 a (for liquid fuels), or ASTM D4006 a (for liquid fuels), or equivalent. f. Measure chlorine concentration in fuel sample EPA SW-846-9250,a ASTM D6721,a ASTM D4208 a (for coal), or EPA SW-846-5050 a or ASTM E776 a (for solid fuel), or EPA SW-846-9056 a or SW-846-9076 a (for solids or liquids) or equivalent. g. Convert concentrations into units of pounds of HCl per MMBtu of heat content For fuel mixtures use Equation 7 in § 63.7530 and convert from chlorine to HCl by multiplying by 1.028. 3. Mercury Fuel Specification for other gas 1 fuels a. Measure mercury concentration in the fuel sample and convert to units of micrograms per cubic meter, or Method 30B (M30B) at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 of this chapter or ASTM D5954,a ASTM D6350,a ISO 6978-1:2003(E).a or ISO 6978-2:2003(E),a or EPA-1631 a or equivalent. b. Measure mercury concentration in the exhaust gas when firing only the other gas 1 fuel is fired in the boiler or process heater Method 29, 30A, or 30B (M29, M30A, or M30B) at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 of this chapter or Method 101A or Method 102 at 40 CFR part 61, appendix B of this chapter, or ASTM Method D6784 a or equivalent. 4. TSM a. Collect fuel samples Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D5192,a or ASTM D7430,a or ASTM D6883,a or ASTM D2234/D2234M a (for coal) or ASTM D6323 a (for coal or biomass), or ASTM D4177,a (for liquid fuels)or ASTM D4057 a (for liquid fuels),or equivalent. b. Composite fuel samples Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent. c. Prepare composited fuel samples EPA SW-846-3050B a (for solid samples), ASTM D2013/D2013M a (for coal), ASTM D5198 a or TAPPI T266 a (for biomass), or EPA 3050 a or equivalent. d. Determine heat content of the fuel type ASTM D5865 a (for coal) or ASTM E711 a (for biomass), or ASTM D5864 a for liquids and other solids, or ASTM D240 a or equivalent. e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type ASTM D3173 a or ASTM E871,a or D5864, or ASTM D240,a or ASTM D95 a (for liquid fuels), or ASTM D4006 a (for liquid fuels), or ASTM D4177 a (for liquid fuels) or ASTM D4057 a (for liquid fuels), or equivalent. f. Measure TSM concentration in fuel sample ASTM D3683,a or ASTM D4606,a or ASTM D6357 a or EPA 200.8 a or EPA SW-846-6020,a or EPA SW-846-6020A,a or EPA SW-846-6010C,a EPA 7060 a or EPA 7060A a (for arsenic only), or EPA SW-846-7740 a (for selenium only). g. Convert concentrations into units of pounds of TSM per MMBtu of heat content For fuel mixtures use Equation 9 in § 63.7530. a Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14. Subpart UUUUU—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 25. Revise § 63.10010(h)(7)(i)(1) to read as follows:
    § 63.10010 What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

    (h) * * *

    (7) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (1) Install and certify your PM CEMS according to the procedures and requirements in Performance Specification 11—Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources in Appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, using Method 5 at Appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter and ensuring that the front half filter temperature shall be 160° ±5 °C (320° ±9 °F). The reportable measurement output from the PM CEMS must be expressed in units of the applicable emissions limit (e.g., lb/MMBtu, lb/MWh).

    26. Revise Table 5 to Subpart UUUUU of part 63 to read as follows: Table 5 to Subpart UUUUU of Part 63—Performance Testing Requirements [As stated in § 63.10007, you must comply with the following requirements performance testing for existing, new or reconstructed affected sources: 1] To conduct a
  • performance test for the following
  • pollutant . . .
  • Using . . . You must perform the following activities, as applicable to your input- or output-based emission limit . . . Using . . . 2
    1. Filterable Particulate matter (PM) Emissions Testing a. Select sampling ports location and the number of traverse points Method 1 at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow-rate of the stack gas Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G or 2H at appendix A-1 or A-2 to part 60 of this chapter. c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas Method 3A or 3B at appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981.3 d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. e. Measure the filterable PM concentration Methods 5 and 5I at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter.
  • For positive pressure fabric filters, Method 5D at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter for filterable PM emissions.
  • Note that the Method 5 or 5I front half temperature shall be 160° ±14 °C (320° ±25 °F).
  • f. Convert emissions concentration to lb/MMBtu or lb/MWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). OR OR PM CEMS a. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the PM CEMS Performance Specification 11 at appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and Procedure 2 at appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. b. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the diluent gas, flow rate, and/or moisture monitoring systems Part 75 of this chapter and § 63.10010(a), (b), (c), and (d). c. Convert hourly emissions concentrations to 30 boiler operating day rolling average lb/MMBtu or lb/MWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). 2. Total or individual non-Hg HAP metals Emissions Testing a. Select sampling ports location and the number of traverse points Method 1 at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow-rate of the stack gas Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G or 2H at appendix A-1 or A-2 to part 60 of this chapter. c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas Method 3A or 3B at appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981.3 d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. e. Measure the HAP metals emissions concentrations and determine each individual HAP metals emissions concentration, as well as the total filterable HAP metals emissions concentration and total HAP metals emissions concentration Method 29 at appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter. For liquid oil-fired units, Hg is included in HAP metals and you may use Method 29, Method 30B at appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter; for Method 29, you must report the front half and back half results separately. When using Method 29, report metals matrix spike and recovery levels. f. Convert emissions concentrations (individual HAP metals, total filterable HAP metals, and total HAP metals) to lb/MMBtu or lb/MWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). 3. Hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) Emissions Testing a. Select sampling ports location and the number of traverse points Method 1 at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow-rate of the stack gas Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G or 2H at appendix A-1 or A-2 to part 60 of this chapter. c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas Method 3A or 3B at appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981.3 d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. e. Measure the HCl and HF emissions concentrations Method 26 or Method 26A at appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter or Method 320 at appendix A to part 63 of this chapter or ASTM 6348-03 3 with
  • (1) the following conditions when using ASTM D6348-03:
  • (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory;
  • (B) For ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (C) For the ASTM D6348-03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte, %R must be 70% ≥R ≤130%; and 1 Regarding emissions data collected during periods of startup or shutdown, see §§ 63.10020(b) and (c) and 63.10021(h). 2 See Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart for required sample volumes and/or sampling run times. 3 Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14.

    3.e.1(D) The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation:

    EP26JA18.006

    and

    To conduct a
  • performance test for the following
  • pollutant . . . (cont'd)
  • Using . . . (cont'd) You must perform the following activities, as applicable to your input- or output-based emission limit . . . Using . . .2 (cont'd)
    (2) spiking levels nominally no greater than two times the level corresponding to the applicable emission limit.
  • Method 26A must be used if there are entrained water droplets in the exhaust stream.
  • f. Convert emissions concentration to lb/MMBtu or lb/MWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). OR OR HCl and/or HF CEMS a. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the HCl or HF CEMS Appendix B of this subpart. b. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the diluent gas, flow rate, and/or moisture monitoring systems Part 75 of this chapter and § 63.10010(a), (b), (c), and (d). c. Convert hourly emissions concentrations to 30 boiler operating day rolling average lb/MMBtu or lb/MWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). 4. Mercury (Hg) Emissions Testing a. Select sampling ports location and the number of traverse points Method 1 at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter or Method 30B at Appendix A-8 for Method 30B point selection. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow-rate of the stack gas Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G or 2H at appendix A-1 or A-2 to part 60 of this chapter. c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas Method 3A or 3B at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981.3 d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. e. Measure the Hg emission concentration Method 30B at appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter, ASTM D6784,3 or Method 29 at appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter; for Method 29, you must report the front half and back half results separately. f. Convert emissions concentration to lb/TBtu or lb/GWh emission rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). OR OR Hg CEMS a. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS Sections 3.2.1 and 5.1 of appendix A of this subpart. b. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the diluent gas, flow rate, and/or moisture monitoring systems Part 75 of this chapter and § 63.10010(a), (b), (c), and (d). c. Convert hourly emissions concentrations to 30 boiler operating day rolling average lb/TBtu or lb/GWh emissions rates Section 6 of appendix A to this subpart. OR OR Sorbent trap monitoring system a. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the sorbent trap monitoring system Sections 3.2.2 and 5.2 of appendix A to this subpart. b. Install, operate, and maintain the diluent gas, flow rate, and/or moisture monitoring systems Part 75 of this chapter and § 63.10010(a), (b), (c), and (d). c. Convert emissions concentrations to 30 boiler operating day rolling average lb/TBtu or lb/GWh emissions rates Section 6 of appendix A to this subpart. OR OR LEE testing a. Select sampling ports location and the number of traverse points Single point located at the 10% centroidal area of the duct at a port location per Method 1 at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter or Method 30B at Appendix A-8 for Method 30B point selection. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow-rate of the stack gas Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2F, 2G, or 2H at appendix A-1 or A-2 to part 60 of this chapter or flow monitoring system certified per appendix A of this subpart. c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas Method 3A or 3B at appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter, or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981,3 or diluent gas monitoring systems certified according to part 75 of this chapter. d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter, or moisture monitoring systems certified according to part 75 of this chapter. e. Measure the Hg emission concentration Method 30B at appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter; perform a 30 operating day test, with a maximum of 10 operating days per run (i.e., per pair of sorbent traps) or sorbent trap monitoring system or Hg CEMS certified per appendix A of this subpart. f. Convert emissions concentrations from the LEE test to lb/TBtu or lb/GWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). g. Convert average lb/TBtu or lb/GWh Hg emission rate to lb/year, if you are attempting to meet the 29.0 lb/year threshold Potential maximum annual heat input in TBtu or potential maximum electricity generated in GWh. 5. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) SO2 CEMS a. Install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS Part 75 of this chapter and § 63.10010(a) and (f). b. Install, operate, and maintain the diluent gas, flow rate, and/or moisture monitoring systems Part 75 of this chapter and § 63.10010(a), (b), (c), and (d). c. Convert hourly emissions concentrations to 30 boiler operating day rolling average lb/MMBtu or lb/MWh emissions rates Method 19 F-factor methodology at appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, or calculate using mass emissions rate and gross output data (see § 63.10007(e)). 2 See Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart for required sample volumes and/or sampling run times. 3 Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14.
    27. In appendix A to part 63: a. Revise section 12.4 in Method 303. b. Revise sections 2.0, 7.2.3.3, 8.1.2, 9.1, 11.3.2, and 12.1 in Method 308. c. Remove and reserve section 7.2.2 in Method 308. d. Add sections 12.5 and 13.0 in Method 308. e. Revise section 9.2.3 in Method 320.. f. Revise section 12.9 in Method 323. g. Revise section 8.2.1.3, Figure 8.1. and section 8.2.3.2 in Method 325A. h. Add section 8.2.3.3 in Method 325A. i. Revise sections 9.3.2, 9.13, 11.3.2.5, and 12.2.2 and table 17-1 in Method 325B. j. Remove sections 12.2.3 and 12.2.4 in Method 325B.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods Pollutant Measurement Methods From Various Waste Media Method 303—Determination of Visible Emissions From By-Product Coke Oven Batteries

    12.4 Average Duration of VE from Charging Operations. Use Equation 303-3 to calculate the daily 30-day rolling log average of seconds of visible emissions from the charging operation for each battery using these current day's observations and the 29 previous valid daily sets of observations.

    EP26JA18.007 Method 308—Procedure for Determination of Methanol Emission From Stationary Sources 2.0 Summary of Method

    A gas sample is extracted from the sampling point in the stack. The methanol is collected in deionized distilled water and adsorbed on silica gel. The sample is returned to the laboratory where the methanol in the water fraction is separated from other organic compounds with a gas chromatograph (GC) and is then measured by a flame ionization detector (FID). The fraction adsorbed on silica gel is extracted with deionized distilled water and is then separated and measured by GC/FID.

    7.2.2 [Reserved].

    7.2.3.3 Methanol Standards for Adsorbent Tube Samples. Prepare a series of methanol standards by first pipetting 10 ml of the methanol working standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask and diluting the contents to exactly 100 ml with deionized distilled water. This standard will contain 10 µg/ml of methanol. Pipette 5, 15, and 25 ml of this standard, respectively, into four 50-ml volumetric flasks. Dilute each solution to 50 ml with deionized distilled water. These standards will have 1, 3, and 5 µg/ml of methanol, respectively. Transfer all four standards into 40-ml glass vials capped with Teflon®-lined septa and store under refrigeration. Discard any excess solution.

    8.1.2 Leak Check. A leak check before and after the sampling run is mandatory. The leak-check procedure is as follows:

    Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., 0- to 40-ml/min) rotameter to the outlet of the DGM, and place a vacuum gauge at or near the probe inlet. Plug the probe inlet, pull a vacuum of at least 250 mm (10 inch) Hg or the highest vacuum experienced during the sampling run, and note the flow rate as indicated by the rotameter. A leakage rate in excess of 2 percent of the average sampling rate is acceptable.

    Note:

    Carefully release the probe inlet plug before turning off the pump.

    9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control Measures. The following quality control measures are required:

    Section Quality control measure Effect 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 10.1 Sampling equipment leak check and calibration Ensures accurate measurement of sample volume. 10.2 GC calibration Ensures precision of GC analysis. 13.0 Methanol spike recovery check Verifies all methanol in stack gas is being captured in impinge/adsorbent tube setup.

    11.3.2 Desorption of Samples. Add 3 ml of deionized distilled water to each of the stoppered vials and shake or vibrate the vials for 30 minutes.

    12.1 Nomenclature.

    Caf = Concentration of methanol in the front of the adsorbent tube, µg/ml. Cab = Concentration of methanol in the back of the adsorbent tube, µg/ml. Ci = Concentration of methanol in the impinger portion of the sample train, µg/ml. E = Mass emission rate of methanol, µg/hr (lb/hr). ms = Total mass of compound measured in impinger and on adsorbent with spiked train (mg). mu = Total mass of compound measured in impinger and on adsorbent with unspiked train (mg). mv = Mass per volume of spiked compound measured (mg/L). Mtot = Total mass of methanol collected in the sample train, µg. Pbar = Barometric pressure at the exit orifice of the DGM, mm Hg (in. Hg). Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg). Qstd = Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate corrected to standard conditions, dscm/hr (dscf/hr). R = fraction of spiked compound recovered s = theoretical concentration (ppm) of spiked target compound Tm = Average DGM absolute temperature, degrees K (°R). Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 degrees K (528 °R). Vaf = Volume of front half adsorbent sample, ml. Vab = Volume of back half adsorbent sample, ml. Vi = Volume of impinger sample, ml. Vm = Dry gas volume as measured by the DGM, dry cubic meters (dcm), dry cubic feet (dcf). Vm(std) = Dry gas volume measured by the DGM, corrected to standard conditions, dry standard cubic meters (dscm), dry standard cubic feet (dscf).

    12.5 Recovery Fraction (R)

    EP26JA18.008 EP26JA18.009 13.0 Method Performance

    Since a potential sample may contain a variety of compounds from various sources, a specific precision limit for the analysis of field samples is impractical. Precision in the range of 5 to 10 percent relative standard deviation (RSD) is typical for gas chromatographic techniques, but an experienced GC operator with a reliable instrument can readily achieve 5 percent RSD. For this method, the following combined GC/operator values are required.

    (a) Precision. Triplicate analyses of calibration standards fall within 5 percent of their mean value.

    (b) Recovery. After developing an appropriate sampling and analytical system for the pollutants of interest, conduct the following spike recovery procedure at each sampling point where the method is being applied.

    i. Methanol Spike. Set up two identical sampling trains. Collocate the two sampling probes in the stack. The probes shall be placed in the same horizontal plane, where the first probe tip is 2.5 cm from the outside edge of the other. One of the sampling trains shall be designated the spiked train and the other the unspiked train. Spike methanol into the impinger, and onto the adsorbent tube in the spiked train prior to sampling. The total mass of methanol shall be 40 to 60 percent of the mass expected to be collected with the unspiked train. Sample the stack gas into the two trains simultaneously. Analyze the impingers and adsorbents from the two trains utilizing identical analytical procedures and instrumentation. Determine the fraction of spiked methanol recovered (R) by combining the amount recovered in the impinger and in the adsorbent tube, using the equations in section 12.5. Recovery values must fall in the range: 0.70 ≤R ≤1.30. Report the R value in the test report.

    Method 320—Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy

    9.2.3 Calculate the dilution ratio using the tracer gas as follows:

    EP26JA18.010 Where: EP26JA18.011 DF = Dilution factor of the spike gas; this value shall be ≥10. SF6(dir) = SF6 (or tracer gas) concentration measured directly in undiluted spike gas. SF6(spk) = Diluted SF6 (or tracer gas) concentration measured in a spiked sample. Spikedir = Concentration of the analyte in the spike standard measured by filling the FTIR cell directly. CS = Expected concentration of the spiked samples. Unspike = Native concentration of analytes in unspiked samples. Method 323—Measurment of Formaldehyde Emissions From Natural Gas-Fired Stationary Sources-Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method

    12.9 Formaldehyde Concentration Corrected to 15% Oxygen

    EP26JA18.012 Method 325A—Volatile Organic Compounds From Fugitive and Area Sources: Sampler Deployment and VOC Sample Collection

    8.2.1.3 Extra samplers must be placed near known sources of VOCs if the potential emission source is within 50 meters (162 feet) of the boundary and the source location is between two monitors. Measure the distance (x) between the two monitors and place another monitor approximately halfway between (x/2 ±10 percent) the two monitors. Only one extra sampler is required between two monitors to account for the known source of VOCs. For example, in Figure 8.1, the facility added three additional monitors (i.e., light shaded sampler locations) and in Figure 8.2, the facility added two additional monitors to provide sufficient coverage of all area sources.

    EP26JA18.013

    8.2.3.2 For facilities with a monitoring perimeter length greater than or equal to 7,315 meters (24,000 feet), sampling locations are spaced 610 ±76 meters (2,000 ±250 feet) apart.

    8.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in an applicable regulation, permit or other requirement, for small disconnected subareas with known sources within 50 meters (162 feet) of the monitoring perimeter, sampling points need not be placed closer than 152 meters (500 feet) apart as long as a minimum of 3 monitoring locations are used for each subarea.

    Method 325B—Volatile Organic Compounds From Fugitive and Area Sources: Sampler Preparation and Analysis

    9.3.2 Field blanks must be shipped to the monitoring site with the sampling tubes and must be stored at the sampling location throughout the monitoring exercise. The field blanks must be installed under a protective hood/cover at the sampling location, but the long-term storage caps must remain in place throughout the monitoring period (see Method 325A). The field blanks are then shipped back to the laboratory in the same container as the sampled tubes. Collect at least two field blank samples per sampling period to ensure sample integrity associated with shipment, collection, and storage.

    9.13 Routine CCV at the Start of a Sequence. Run CCV before each sequence of analyses and after every tenth sample to ensure that the previous multi-level calibration (see Section 10.0) is still valid.

    11.3.2.5 Whenever the thermal desorption—GC/MS analytical method is changed or major equipment maintenance is performed, you must conduct a new five-level calibration (see Section 10.0). System calibration remains valid as long as results from subsequent CCV are within 30 percent of the most recent 5-point calibration (see Section 9.13). Include relevant CCV data in the supporting information in the data report for each set of samples.

    12.2.2 Determine the equivalent concentrations of compounds in atmospheres as follows. Correct target compound concentrations determined at the sampling site temperature and atmospheric pressure to standard conditions (25 °C and 760 mm mercury) using Equation 12.5.

    EP26JA18.014 Where: mmeas = The mass of the compound as measured in the sorbent tube (µg). t = The exposure time (minutes). tss = The average temperature during the collection period at the sampling site (K). UNTP = The method defined diffusive uptake rate (sampling rate) (mL/min). Note:

    Diffusive uptake rates (Ustd) for common VOCs, using carbon sorbents packed into sorbent tubes of the dimensions specified in Section 6.1, are listed in Table 12.1. Adjust analytical conditions to keep expected sampled masses within range (see Sections 11.3.1.3 to 11.3.1.5). Best possible method detection limits are typically in the order of 0.1 ppb for 1,3-butadiene and 0.05 ppb for volatile aromatics such as benzene for 14-day monitoring. However, actual detection limits will depend upon the analytical conditions selected.

    Table 17.1—Summary of GC/MS Analysis Quality Control Procedures Parameter Frequency Acceptance criteria Corrective action Bromofluorobenzene Instrument Tune Performance Check Daily a prior to sample analysis Evaluation criteria presented in Section 9.5 and Table 9.2 (1) Retune and or
  • (2) Perform Maintenance.
  • Five point calibration bracketing the expected sample concentration Following any major change, repair or maintenance or if daily CCV does not meet method requirements. Recalibration not to exceed three months (1) Percent Deviation (%DEV) of response factors ±30%
  • (2) Relative Retention Times (RRTs) for target peaks ±0.06 units from mean RRT
  • (1) Repeat calibration sample analysis.
  • (2) Repeat linearity check.
  • (3) Prepare new calibration standards as necessary and repeat analysis.
  • Calibration Verification (CCV Second source calibration verification check) Following the calibration curve The response factor ±30% DEV from calibration curve average response factor (1) Repeat calibration check.
  • (2) Repeat calibration curve.
  • Laboratory Blank Analysis Daily a following bromofluoro- benzene and calibration check; prior to sample analysis (1) ≤0.2 ppbv per analyte or ≤3 times the LOD, whichever is greater
  • (2) Internal Standard (IS) area response ±40% and IS Retention Time (RT) ±0.33 min. of most recent calibration check
  • (1) Repeat analysis with new blank tube.
  • (2) Check system for leaks, contamination.
  • (3) Analyze additional blank.
  • Blank Sorbent Tube Certification One tube analyzed for each batch of tubes cleaned or 10 percent of tubes whichever is greater <0.2 ppbv per VOC targeted compound or 3 times the LOD, whichever is greater Re-clean all tubes in batch and reanalyze. Samples—Internal Standards All samples IS area response ±40% and IS RT ±0.33 min. of most recent calibration validation Flag Data for possible invalidation. Field Blanks Two per sampling period No greater than one-third of the measured target analyte or compliance limit. Flag Data for possible invalidation due to high blank bias. a Every 24 hours.
    [FR Doc. 2018-00470 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0698; FRL-9972-54-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; North Dakota; Control of Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d)/129 plan (the “plan”) submitted by the Division of Air Quality of the North Dakota Department of Health (the “Department”) on June 12, 2014. The plan would allow for the implementation of emissions guidelines for existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units within the jurisdiction of the State of North Dakota. The plan creates new enforceable emissions limits and operating procedures for existing CISWI units within the State of North Dakota in accordance with the requirements established by the revised CISWI new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG), promulgated by the EPA on March 21, 2011, with subsequent final amendments to the rule promulgated on February 7, 2013. This proposed plan approval rulemaking is being taken in accordance with the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA and the relevant parts and subparts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0698 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Lohrke, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6396, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 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 submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number);

    • Follow directions and organize your comments;

    • Explain why you agree or disagree;

    • Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and,

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background Information

    Sections 111 and 129 of the CAA outline the EPA's statutory authority for regulating new and existing solid waste incineration units. Section 111(b) directs the EPA Administrator to publish and periodically revise a list of source categories which significantly cause or contribute to air pollution. This subsection also directs the Administrator to establish federal standards of performance for new sources within these categories. Section 111(d) grants the EPA statutory authority to require states to submit to the agency implementation plans for establishing performance standards applicable to existing sources belonging to those categories established in section 111(b). Section 129 specifically addresses solid waste combustion and requires that the EPA regulate new and existing waste incineration units pursuant to section 111 of the Act, including the requirement that a state in which existing designated facilities operate submit for approval a state plan for each category of regulated waste incineration units. Section 129(b)(3) requires the EPA to promulgate a federal plan for existing waste incineration units of any designated category located in any state which has not submitted an approvable 111(d)/129 state plan for said category of waste incineration unit. Such federal plans remain in effect until the state in question submits a new or revised state plan and subsequently receives approval and promulgation of the plan under 40 CFR part 62.

    State plan submittals under CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be consistent with the relevant new or revised EG. Section 129(a)(1)(D) of the Act requires the EPA to develop and periodically revise operating standards for new and existing CISWI units. The NSPS and EG for CISWI units were promulgated on December 1, 2000, at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. Revisions to the CISWI NSPS and EG were subsequently promulgated by the EPA on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15704), with final actions on reconsideration of the rule published on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9112), and June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40956). State plan requirements specific to CISWI units, along with a model rule to ease adoption of the EG, are found in subpart DDDD, while more general state plan requirements are found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The guidelines found in subpart DDDD require that states impose emission limits on designated facilities for those pollutants regulated under section 129, including: Dioxins/furans, carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead and mercury), hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, opacity and particulate matter. The EG also requires state plans include essential elements pursuant to section 129 requirements, including: Monitoring, operator training and facility permitting requirements.

    The current North Dakota state plan was submitted in May 2003 and approved and promulgated on September 17, 2003 (68 FR 54374), under 40 CFR part 62, subpart JJ in response to the original CISWI rule as it was promulgated on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75338). Due to the most recent revisions to the CISWI rule, the State of North Dakota is required to revise and resubmit its state plan for the EPA approval with respect to the updated EG requirements. On June 12, 2014, the Department submitted to the EPA revisions to the current North Dakota state plan for existing CISWI units within the state's jurisdiction.

    III. Summary of North Dakota's Section 111(d)/129 Plan for Existing CISWI Units

    The EPA has completed a review of the revised North Dakota section 111(d)/129 plan submittal in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, and part 62, subpart A. The EPA has determined that the plan submittal meets the requirements found in the above-cited subparts. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the submitted state plan. The EPA's proposed approval action is limited to the revised CISWI state plan submittal and the subpart DDDD “Model Rule” addressing CISWI units as it is incorporated by the State of North Dakota in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Chapter 33-15-12-02, subpart DDDD. A detailed summary of the submittal's compliance with the requirements found in the CFR is available in the technical support document (TSD) associated with this rulemaking action. The TSD, as well as the complete North Dakota submittal package, will be available in the docket for this rulemaking action and may be found at the www.regulations.gov website.

    IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing approval of the North Dakota 111(d)/129 state plan for existing CISWI units because the plan requirements are at least as stringent as the requirements for existing CISWI units found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. The state plan was submitted pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDDD and B, and part 62, subpart A. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart JJ to reflect the acceptability of the state plan submittal. This proposed approval is limited to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 and 62 for existing CISWI units, as found in the emission guidelines of Part 60, subpart DDDD. The EPA Administrator will retain the authorities listed under §§ 60.2542 and 60.2030(c).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a section 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations at 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,

    • Is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 22, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01492 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0006; FRL-9971-46] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice 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 February 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by 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:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), 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.

    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 petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

    III. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    PP 7F8557. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0429). E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, DE 19805, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide picoxystrobin in or on alfalfa, forage at 4 parts per million (ppm); alfalfa, hay at 5 ppm; alfalfa, seed at 9 ppm; almond hulls at 15 ppm; cotton, gin by-products at 40 ppm; cottonseed (Crop Subgroup 20C) at 4 ppm; grass, forage (Grown for Seed) at 40 ppm; grass, hay (Grown for Seed) at 80 ppm; head lettuce at 7 ppm; onion, bulb (Crop Subgroup 3-07A) at 0.8 ppm; onion, green (Crop Subgroup 3-07B) at 15; pea and bean, succulent shelled (Crop Subgroup 6B) at 3 ppm; peanut at 0.1 ppm; peanut, hay at 40 ppm; sunflower (Crop Subgroup 20B) at 3 ppm; tree nut except hulls (Crop Group 14-12) at 0.15 ppm; vegetable, brassica head and stem (Crop Group 5-16) at 5 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit (Crop Group 9) at 0.7 ppm; vegetable, fruiting (Crop Group 8-10) at 1.5 ppm; vegetable, leaf petiole (Crop Subgroup 22B) at 40 ppm; vegetable, leafy except head lettuce (Crop Group 4-16) at 60 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber (Crop Group 2) at 40 ppm; vegetable, legume, edible podded (Crop Subgroup 6A) at 4 ppm; vegetable, root (Crop Subgroup 1A) at 0.6 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm (Crop Subgroup 1C) at 0.06 ppm. The liquid chromatography/triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical picoxystrobin. Contact: RD.

    IV. Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 5F8521. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787). K-I Chemical USA, Inc., 11 Martine Ave., Suite 970, White Plains, NY 10606, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.659 for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolites in or on Crop Subgroup 1C, tuberous and corm vegetables (except granular/flakes and chips) at 0.05 ppm; Crop Group 3-07, bulb vegetables at 0.15 ppm; potatoes, granular/flakes at 0.3 ppm and potato chips at 0.06 ppm. The high performance LC/MS/MS methods has been proposed to enforce the tolerance expression for pyroxasulfone. Contact: RD.

    2. PP 7E8556. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224). Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under “New Tolerances” for PP 7E8556, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613(a) for the residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, except spinach at 4.0 ppm, brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 16 ppm, radish, tops at 16 ppm, turnip, greens at 16 ppm, and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.50 ppm. Contact: RD.

    3. PP 7E8587. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465). IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.368 by removing the tolerances for residues of the herbicide S-metalochlor including its metabolites and degradates in or on Asparagus at 0.10 ppm; beet, garden, leaves at 1.8 ppm; turnip, greens at 1.8 ppm; brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.60 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 1.8 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.10 ppm; leaf petioles, subgroup 4B at 0.10 ppm. A gas chromatography-nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method has been submitted to the Agency for determining residues in/on crop commodities and is published in PAM Vol. II, Method I. Contact: RD.

    4. PP 7E8610. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0562). IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR 180.546 by removing the tolerance for residues of the fungicide mefenoxam, including its metabolites and degradates in or on kiwifruit at 0.10 ppm. The analytical methods cited are the Novartis Crop Protection Method 456-98, “Confirmatory Analytical Method for the Enantioselective Determination of Residues of Parent Metalaxyl (CGA-48988) or Mefenoxam (CGA-329351) in Crop Substrates by Chiral High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometric Detection”, and the Ciba-Geigy Corporation Procedure AG-395, “Improved Method for the Determination of Total Residues of Metalaxyl in Crop as 2,6-dimethylaniline”. This total residue method is used for the determination of the combined residues of metalaxyl N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl) alanine methyl ester and its metabolites which contain the 2,6-dimethylaniline (2,6-DMA) moiety in crop samples. Contact: RD.

    5. PP 7E8613. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0587). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under “New Tolerances” for PP 7E8613, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.675 for residues of the insecticide tolfenpyrad, (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(ptolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide), including it metabolites and degradates, in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.70 ppm; grape at 2.0 ppm; potato at 0.01 ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 30.0 ppm. The LC/MS/MS method is used to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.

    V. New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 6F8504. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0565). Gowan Company LLC, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the biochemical fungicide Extract of Swinglea glutinosa in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the information supporting the request for exemption indicates limited exposure and no risk. Contact: BPPD.

    VI. New Tolerances For Non-Inerts

    1. PP 5F8521. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787). K-I Chemical USA, Inc., 11 Martine Ave., Suite 970, White Plains, NY 10606, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.659 for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolites in or on Crop Subgroup 1C, tuberous and corm vegetables (except granular/flakes and chips) at 0.05 ppm; Crop Group 3-07, bulb vegetables at 0.15 ppm; potatoes, granular/flakes at 0.3 ppm and potato chips at 0.06 ppm. The high performance LC/MS/MS methods has been proposed to enforce the tolerance expression for pyroxasulfone. Contact: RD.

    2. PP 7E8556. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on raw agricultural commodities as follows:

    a. Amend 180.613 (a) General. (1) by establishing a tolerance in or on celtuce at 4.0 ppm; Florence fennel at 4.0 ppm; kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; and Crop Group Expansions/Conversions for brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 16 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.60 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 4.0 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 4.0 ppm; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm, and

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

    Analytical methodology to determine above designated residues of flonicamid for the majority of crops includes an initial extraction with acetonitrile (ACN)/deionized (DI) water, followed by a liquid-liquid partition with ethyl acetate. The residue method for wheat straw is similar, except that a C18 solid phase extraction (SPE) is added prior to the liquid-liquid partition. The final sample solution is quantitated using a liquid chromatograph (LC) equipped with a reverse phase column and a triple quadruple mass spectrometer (MS/MS). Contact: RD.

    3. PP 7E8587. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465). IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide S-metalochlor including its metabolites and degradates in or on the raw agricultural commodities stevia, dried leaves at 15.0 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet at 2.0 ppm; Swiss chard at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 0.60 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except Chinese broccoli at 1.8 ppm; stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A, except celtuce, Florence fennel, and kohlrabi at 0.10 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 0.10 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.10 ppm; celtuce at 0.10 ppm; Florence fennel at 0.10 ppm; kohlrabi at 0.60 ppm, and Chinese broccoli at 0.60 ppm. A GC/NPD method has been submitted to the Agency for determining residues in/on crop commodities and is published in PAM Vol. II, Method I. Contact: RD.

    4. PP 7E8610. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0562). IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide mefenoxam, including its metabolites and degradates in or on the raw agricultural commodities cacao bean, bean at 0.2 ppm; wasabi, tops at 6.0 ppm; wasabi, stem at 3.0 ppm; and fruit, small, vine climbing, except grape, crop subgroup 13-07E at 0.10 ppm. The analytical methods cited are the Novartis Crop Protection Method 456-98, “Confirmatory Analytical Method for the Enantioselective Determination of Residues of Parent Metalaxyl (CGA-48988) or Mefenoxam (CGA-329351) in Crop Substrates by Chiral High Performance Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometric Detection”, and the Ciba-Geigy Corporation Procedure AG-395, “Improved Method for the Determination of Total Residues of Metalaxyl in Crop as 2,6-dimethylaniline”. This total residue method is used for the determination of the combined residues of metalaxyl N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl) alanine methyl ester and its metabolites which contain the 2,6-dimethylaniline (2,6-DMA) moiety in crop samples. Contact: RD.

    5. PP 7E8613. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0587) from IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.675 for residues of the insecticide tolfenpyrad, (4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide), including it metabolites and degradates, in or on arugula at 30.0 ppm; avocado at 1.5 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry and blueberry, lowbush at 3.0 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 7.0 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 7.0 ppm; celtuce at 30.0 ppm; cottonseed, subgroup 20C at 0.70 ppm; Florence fennel at 30.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 2.0 ppm; garden cress at 30.0 ppm; leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A at 30.0 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B at 30.0 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.09 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 10.0 ppm; upland cress at 30.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm. The LC/MS/MS method is used to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: December 4, 2017. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01498 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 [WT Docket No. 10-112; Report No. 3083] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration & Clarification (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Jeff Chalmers, on behalf of American Messaging Services, LLC; David Alban, on behalf of Sensus USA Inc. and Sensus Spectrum LLC; Kenneth E. Hardman, on behalf of Critical Messaging Association and Mark E. Crosby, on behalf of Enterprise Wireless Alliance.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 12, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before February 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Jones, email: [email protected]; phone: (202) 418-1327.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3083, released January 18, 2018. The full texts of the Petitions are available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

    Subject: Wireless Radio Services, FCC 17-105, published at 82 FR 41530, September 1, 2017, in WT Docket No. 10-112. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01407 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 17-318; FCC 17-169] National Television Multiple Ownership Rule AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) initiates a comprehensive review of the national television audience reach cap, including the UHF discount used by broadcasters to determine compliance with the cap. The national cap limits entities from owning or controlling television stations that, together, reach more than 39 percent of the television households in the country. The NPRM asks questions about whether a cap is still needed and what public interest goals it would promote, where the cap should be set if still needed, and how compliance with the cap should be calculated, including the question of whether the UHF discount should be eliminated. The Notice also invites comment on the Commission's legal authority to take such actions.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before February 26, 2018. Reply Comments are due on or before March 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may submit comments and replies, identified by MB Docket No. 17-318, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    For more detailed filing instructions, see the Procedural Matters section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brendan Holland, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, [email protected] (202) 418-2757.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This NPRM in MB Docket No. 17-318, was adopted December 14, 2017, and released December 18, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://apps.fcc.gov/edoc_putlic/attachmatch/FCC-17-169A1.pdf. To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g. braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g. accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    1. Background. The national television audience reach cap and the related UHF discount are an outgrowth of television ownership restrictions dating back to the earliest days of broadcast television. The Commission first imposed national ownership restrictions for television stations in 1941 by limiting the number of stations that could be commonly owned, operated, or controlled to three. This limit was eventually broadened to seven stations in 1954 and eventually to 12 stations in 1984. In 1985, the Commission also determined that a 25 percent nationwide audience reach cap, in addition to the twelve-station limit, would help prevent a potentially disruptive industry restructuring. Along with the national cap, the Commission also adopted a 50 percent UHF discount to reflect the fact that, in the analog television broadcasting era, UHF signals reached a smaller audience in comparison with VHF signals. The UHF discount provides that, for purposes of determining compliance with the national audience reach cap, stations broadcasting in the VHF spectrum are attributed with all television households in their Designated Market Areas (DMAs), while UHF stations are attributed with only 50 percent of the households in their DMAs.

    2. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress directed the Commission to amend its rules to increase the national audience reach cap from 25 percent to 35 percent and eliminate the restriction on owning more than 12 broadcast television stations nationwide. The Commission reaffirmed the 35 percent cap in its 1998 Biennial Review Order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) later remanded that decision, finding that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that the 35 percent national audience reach cap advanced localism, diversity, or competition. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, the Commission found that while a national ownership cap was no longer needed to protect diversity and competition, the cap remained necessary to protect localism. The Commission further concluded that raising the cap from 35 percent to 45 percent would strike an appropriate balance between the broadcast networks and the local affiliates by permitting some growth for the owners of the Big Four networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) and allowing them to achieve greater economies of scale, while at the same time ensuring that the networks could not reach a larger national audience than their affiliates collectively.

    3. Following adoption of the 2002 Biennial Review Order, and while an appeal of that order was pending, Congress partially rolled back the cap increase by including a provision in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) directing the Commission “to modify its rules to set the national cap at 39 percent of national television households.” The CAA further amended Section 202(h) of the 1996 Act to require a quadrennial review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules, rather than the previously mandated biennial review. In doing so, however, Congress excluded consideration of “any rules relating to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation” from the quadrennial review requirement. Prior to the enactment of the CAA, several parties had appealed the Commission's 2002 Biennial Review Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). In June 2004, the Third Circuit found that the challenges to the Commission's actions with respect to the national audience reach cap and the UHF discount were moot as a result of Congress's action.

    4. In August 2016, the Commission eliminated the UHF discount, finding that UHF stations were no longer technically inferior to VHF stations following the digital television transition and that the competitive disparity between UHF and VHF stations had disappeared. Then-Commissioner Pai and Commissioner O'Rielly dissented from this decision. In April 2017, in response to a Petition for Reconsideration, the Commission reinstated the UHF discount, finding that the Commission's elimination of the discount, effectively tightening the cap without also determining whether the cap remained in the public interest, was arbitrary and capricious and unwise from a public policy perspective. Because the UHF discount is used to determine licensees' compliance with the national audience reach cap, the Commission concluded that the UHF discount and the cap are inextricably linked, and eliminating the discount without considering the cap itself was in error. In reinstating the UHF discount, the Commission committed to undertake this comprehensive rulemaking to determine whether to modify or eliminate the national cap, including the UHF discount.

    5. Commission Authority To Modify or Eliminate the National Cap. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks comment on its authority to modify or eliminate the national cap, including authority to modify or eliminate the UHF discount. The Commission previously concluded in the UHF Discount Elimination Order that the Commission has authority to modify or eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap, including the UHF discount (although it refrained from adjusting the cap). The Commission found that it had such authority based on its broad authority to adopt—and revise or eliminate—all necessary rules under the Communications Act. In contrast, parties opposing reinstatement of the UHF discount on reconsideration argued variously that the Commission lacked authority to modify or eliminate the national cap, the UHF discount, or both.

    6. In previously concluding that it has authority to modify or eliminate the national cap, the Commission rejected arguments that, when Congress established the 39 percent national audience reach cap, it precluded the Commission from any adjustment of the cap or the discount. The Commission reasoned that the 2004 CAA “simply directed the Commission to revise its rules to reflect a 39 percent national audience reach cap and removed the requirement to review the national ownership cap from the Commission's quadrennial review requirement.” The Commission concluded that the CAA did not impose a statutory national audience reach cap or prohibit the Commission from evaluating the elements of this rule. In addition, although the Third Circuit ultimately concluded in its review of the Commission's 2002 Biennial Review Order that questions related to the UHF discount were moot as a result of the CAA, it did not foreclose the Commission's consideration of its regulation defining the UHF discount in a rulemaking outside the context of section 202(h). Further, Congress elected to use the same language in the 2004 CAA, instructing the Commission to “modify its rules,” as it did when it instructed the Commission to change the cap from 25 to 35 percent as part of the 1996 Act. Both the DC Circuit (in finding it was arbitrary and capricious for the Commission to retain that cap as part of the 1998 biennial review) and the Commission itself (in subsequently raising the cap from 35 to 45 percent) interpreted the identical language in the 1996 Act as preserving the Commission's authority to modify the cap in the future.

    7. The Commission further based its finding of authority to modify the cap and discount on its broad authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Communications Act, and its authority to revisit its rules and revise or eliminate them as appropriate. Given continued questions regarding authority in this area, the Commission seeks further comment on its prior conclusion that it has authority to modify or eliminate the national audience reach cap and the UHF discount. The Commission asks whether Congress's exclusion of the national cap from the quadrennial review provision merely meant to relieve the Commission of the obligation to reconsider the cap every four years (as the Third Circuit concluded), or was it designed to withhold the Commission's authority to change the cap as set by Congress. The Commission also asks whether Congress's instruction to the Commission to “modify its rules” in 1996 and 2004, rather than simply mandating a specific national audience reach cap, preserves the Commission's traditional statutory authority to alter or eliminate the cap in a future rulemaking.

    8. Modification of Elimination of the National Audience Reach Cap. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is still a need for a national cap that prevents ownership of stations that collectively reach more than a certain percentage of the television households in the country. The Commission asks whether such a cap serves the public interest. The Commission notes at the outset that the video marketplace has changed considerably since it last considered the national cap in the 2002 Biennial Review Order, and since Congress instructed the Commission to set a 39 percent cap in 2004. The Commission's most recent annual Video Competition Report describes, among other developments, the growth of video programming options available to consumers, including online alternatives to traditional video distribution, reverse compensation fees paid by affiliates to broadcast networks, common ownership of broadcast and cable networks, consolidation among both Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) and non-network owned station groups, and continuing MVPD video subscriber losses. The Commission concluded in the UHF Order on Reconsideration that the failure to consider these changes compounded the error of eliminating the UHF discount. Accordingly, the Commission now seeks comment on how these marketplace changes, as well as any other changes not previously mentioned, should be considered in the context of the possible modification or elimination of the national audience reach cap. For instance, the Commission previously found in its 2002 Biennial Review Order that a national audience reach cap set at some level is necessary in the public interest to promote localism. Specifically, the Commission found that a percentage cap maintains the appropriate balance of power between broadcast networks and their local affiliate groups, in part by preventing the excessive accumulation of audience reach by network-owned groups, which are more likely to hold stations in multiple geographic markets with large populations. The Commission reasoned that a national audience reach cap preserves the leverage necessary for local affiliates to collectively negotiate to influence network programming decisions and exercise their rights to preempt network programming in favor of programming the affiliates feel is better suited to local community needs. In setting a 45 percent cap, the Commission found that a national audience reach cap set at that level would ensure that network-owned station groups could not achieve a level of direct audience reach that exceeds that of their local affiliates, while at the same time allowing for limited growth by each of the Big Four network owners, allowing them to achieve better economies of scale and scope and remain competitive.

    9. The Commission now seeks comment on whether the existing cap is still necessary to promote localism. The Commission asks whether its previously articulated justifications—related to collective influence and preemption by local affiliates—still hold true, and whether localism has increased, decreased, or remained roughly the same over time. The Commission asks whether there are recent examples where local affiliates have influenced network programming to better serve local needs, and how recent affiliate preemption rates compare to those the Commission cited in the 2002 Biennial Review Order. The Commission asks whether there are other metrics by which it can assess the effect of the national audience reach cap on localism and whether, even if preserving a national audience reach cap at some level would promote localism, would modifying or eliminating the cap nevertheless have offsetting benefits (for example, in promoting competition or diversity).

    10. The Commission also asks whether other changes in the marketplace have affected the network/affiliate relationship, such that it would need to adjust assumptions made in previous reviews of the cap. The Commission asks how the growth of independent station groups over the last two decades has changed the dynamic between network-owned station groups and their affiliates. The Commission notes that its interest in preserving a national/local balance between networks and affiliates is predicated upon the Commission's prior conclusion that networks and their affiliates have different economic incentives when it comes to serving local interests. The Commission previously has found that broadcast networks primarily seek to air programming that will appeal to large national audiences, while local affiliates are more attuned to the needs of their local communities. The Commission seeks comment on these prior conclusions, including whether the conclusion that local affiliates are more attuned to local needs is still valid and whether it continues to apply equally to all local affiliates. The Commission also asks whether the size of the station group affects this conclusion.

    11. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other justifications for a national audience reach cap besides localism. In the 2002 Biennial Review Order, for example, the Commission noted in its competition discussion that the national cap appeared to encourage innovation in broadcast television by preserving a number of separately-owned station groups and then concluded that a variety of owners had led to innovative programming formats and technical advances. The Commission pointed to new programming formats developed by non-network owned affiliates, such as all-news channels and local news magazines, and the potential for experimentation in the use of digital spectrum as part of the digital television transition. The Commission now seeks comment on whether these prior conclusions have proven true over time and whether they remain true today. The Commission asks whether the variety of owners on a national level produced by the national audience reach cap continues to promote innovation in the marketplace, or whether there are ways in which the national audience reach cap hinders innovation.

    12. The Commission previously has found that a national television ownership restriction is not necessary to promote the goals of competition or diversity. The Commission first reached this conclusion in 1984 when, regarding competition, it recognized the relevance of advertising to measuring competition in national and local television markets, and concluded that, for the local spot advertising market, the local television ownership rule rather than a national ownership rule would best address any risk of competitive harm. Regarding diversity, the Commission concluded that national broadcast ownership limits, as opposed to local ownership limits, ordinarily are not pertinent to assuring a diversity of views. The Commission nonetheless set a national audience reach cap to avoid any rapid restructuring of the industry that might be caused by its decision the previous year to raise the numerical cap from seven to twelve stations. The Commission now asks whether these previous conclusions are still valid, and whether any other goals supporting national ownership limits should be considered in this proceeding.

    13. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether changes in the marketplace warrant a fresh look at the national television ownership rule's impact on competition or diversity at either the local or national level. The Commission asks how marketplace changes have affected competition in the local broadcast television market or any other relevant markets. The Commission notes that other video distributors, including direct broadcast satellite providers and online video programmers, are not restricted by ownership limits. The Commission asks whether the cap, or the current level of the cap, have any negative impact on competition or diversity, and how any modification of the cap might affect these goals. The Commission asks whether marketplace changes have affected the relationships and business dealings between local broadcasters and other video distributors in ways that would justify retention, modification, or elimination of the national audience reach cap. The Commission notes that it has rules in place related to the distribution of video programming and carriage negotiations between broadcast stations and MVPDs (local exclusivity and retransmission consent negotiation rules) and asks whether the existence of these rules in any way informs the consideration of whether to retain, modify, or eliminate the cap. The Commission asks, for example, whether the rules have affected the relationships and business dealings between local broadcasters and other video distributors in ways that might affect the need for and operation of any national audience reach cap. The Commission also asks whether the cap serves any competition or diversity purpose related to the production or purchase of programming (e.g., syndicated programming).

    14. If the Commission concludes that a national audience reach cap remains in the public interest, it asks at what level it should be set. The Commission asks whether a 39 percent cap still makes sense, or whether the cap should be set at a different level. The Commission has not articulated a justification for the cap in well over a decade, and the last time it did, it concluded that the cap should be raised from 35 to 45 percent. Congress subsequently scaled back the Commission's 45 percent cap to the current 39 percent level in 2004. Commenters urging the Commission to retain the 39 percent cap or to adjust it either upward or downward should provide a reasoned basis for any proposed line-drawing. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the national audience reach cap should apply equally to all ownership groups (e.g., groups that are network-owned or affiliated with cable networks versus those that are not). The Commission asks whether audience reach is the proper measurement to use for the cap (as opposed to some other measurement of a station group's size or influence, such as actual viewership, market share, or amount of advertising revenue). The Commission asks whether it should consider alternatives with some built-in flexibility; for instance, alternatives that might employ the use of a threshold screen that would trigger a more detailed analysis, such as an automatic presumption or a safe harbor, either in lieu of or in addition to a bright line cap. If the Commission were to modify the national audience reach cap, it asks whether this action would affect any barriers to entry (either positively or negatively), including entry by women, minority, or small business owners.

    15. Determining Compliance With a National Cap. Assuming the Commission retains a national audience reach cap at some level, it seeks comment on how to calculate compliance, including possible modification or elimination of the UHF discount. If the Commission determines that it has authority to adjust the national cap and that a national cap remains necessary in the public interest, it asks what, if any, changes it should make to the rules for determining licensees' compliance with that cap.

    16. Initially, the Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the UHF discount. Notably, no commenter in the prior UHF discount proceedings presented evidence that the original technical justification for the discount is still valid, and the Commission in the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration did not disturb its earlier conclusion that the UHF discount no longer has a sound technical basis following the digital television transition. The Commission seeks further comment on this prior conclusion, as well as on the importance of any non-technical justifications for the UHF discount that remain relevant. For example, the Commission noted in the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration the industry's reliance on the UHF discount to develop long-term business strategies. Parties seeking reinstatement of the UHF discount described how they used the UHF discount to build new networks that provide innovative, competitive programming. The Commission seeks comment on whether eliminating the UHF discount would, on balance, serve the public interest and whether the current UHF discount causes harm to consumers or presents other drawbacks to retaining it.

    17. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the UHF discount should be modified or whether it should be supplemented or replaced with some other weighting method for determining compliance with any national limit on ownership of broadcast stations. The Commission asks whether there are other station or market characteristics that would warrant discounting or weighting a station's audience reach when determining compliance with a national cap. The Commission previously sought comment on and declined to adopt a VHF discount, acknowledging that UHF spectrum is now generally considered more desirable than VHF spectrum for digital television broadcasting, but finding insufficient evidence to conclude that VHF operations are universally inferior to UHF operations or that VHF stations' economic viability was sufficiently in jeopardy to warrant a VHF discount. The Commission seeks comment on these previous conclusions as well as whether there are other discounts or weights it should consider as part of a national ownership rule. The Commission asks how, if at all, it should account for the fact that many consumers today receive local broadcast stations via an MVPD, rather than over the air, in considering any discount or weight premised on a disparity in over-the-air coverage.

    18. The Commission seeks comment on the impact that elimination of the UHF discount would have on the operation or effectiveness of a national audience reach cap. In the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration, the Commission concluded that the elimination of the UHF discount effectively tightened the national cap. Therefore, if the Commission eliminates the UHF discount, the Commission asks whether it should simultaneously raise the national cap and by how much, assuming it finds that it has authority to do so. The Commission asks whether the UHF discount serves the underlying purposes of the national cap, namely, the preservation of a balance of power between broadcast networks and local affiliates, and how, if at all, elimination of the discount would alter that network/affiliate dynamic. The Commission asks whether the UHF discount benefits certain types of station group owners more than others (e.g., non-Big Four networks versus Big Four networks), and how its elimination would affect such owners. The Commission also seeks comment on how eliminating the UHF discount would affect not only the local television market, but the broader video marketplace as a whole.

    19. Benefit-Cost Analysis. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to compare the benefits and costs associated with modifying or eliminating the national cap, including the UHF discount. The Commission asks commenters supporting modification or elimination of the current 39 percent audience reach cap or the UHF discount to explain the anticipated economic impact of any proposed action and, where possible, to quantify benefits and costs of proposed actions and alternatives. The Commission asks whether the current national audience reach cap creates benefits or costs for any segment of consumers. The Commission asks whether the cap creates benefits or costs for any segment of the industry that should be counted as social benefits or costs rather than transfers from one segment of the industry to another. The Commission asks how the cap creates these benefits and costs, and what evidence supports this explanation. The Commission asks how the value of these benefits and costs can be measured for parties receiving them, what factors create uncertainty about the existence or size of these benefits and costs, and how its economic analysis should take these uncertainties into account.

    20. The Commission asks how elimination of the national audience reach cap would alter these benefits and costs, and the comparative benefits and costs of modifying the cap upward rather than eliminating it entirely. The Commission asks whether allowing station groups to exceed the current 39 percent cap leads to any consumer benefits, such as increased competition, choice, innovation, or investment in programming, and what amount of additional scale above the current ownership limit would be required to realize such benefits. The Commission asks the comparative benefits and costs of lowering the cap. Commenters making claims about benefits and costs should support their claims with relevant economic theory and evidence, including empirical analysis and data.

    21. Comparison of benefits and costs allows the Commission to identify the most economically efficient policy—that is, the policy that maximizes the value of resources from the perspective of consumers. The Commission asks whether it should seek to preserve a level of localism or other policy outcomes that do not maximize economic efficiency or consumer welfare, what public interest reasons support such actions, and what evidence justifies the elevation of these other public interest considerations over consumer welfare. The Commission asks what limiting principle the Commission should employ to determine when these alternative public interest considerations are satisfied, and what evidence demonstrates that the commenter's preferred policy alternative is likely to achieve the appropriate level of localism or other desired outcome, as determined by these other public interest considerations.

    22. Relationship to Other Commission Rules. Prior to 2004, when Congress expressly excluded review of the national audience reach cap from the Commission's quadrennial review process, the national cap typically had been considered in conjunction with the Commission's other media ownership rules. For example, when the Commission raised the limit on the number of stations a broadcaster could own to twelve, it also adopted a limit on the total national audience reach of station groups. To ensure a comprehensive review, the Commission seeks comment on the interplay between the national audience reach cap and other Commission ownership rules affecting television broadcasters. First, the Commission seeks comment on how, if at all, its local television ownership rule, which limits consolidation within local markets, should be taken into account in analyzing whether to modify or eliminate the national cap, which limits consolidation on a national level. Second, the Commission invites comment on how, if at all, it should consider the future decisions of television broadcasters to adopt the “Next Generation” transmission standard (or ATSC 3.0) on a voluntary basis. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider the potential impact on any other Commission rule or action in analyzing whether to modify or eliminate the national cap or UHF discount.

    23. Grandfathering. To the extent that any rule the Commission adopts as a result of this proceeding causes a station owner to no longer be in compliance with the national audience reach cap or to violate any new limit, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should grandfather such ownership combinations as it has in the past. The Commission further seeks comment as to whether there should be any restrictions on the further transferability of any grandfathered stations. The Commission notes that, in the UHF Discount Elimination Order, it grandfathered station combinations that would exceed the 39 percent cap as a result of elimination of the UHF discount, but would have required any grandfathered ownership combination subsequently sold or transferred to comply with the national ownership cap in existence at the time of transfer. Subsequently, the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration reinstated the UHF discount and dismissed as moot requests to reconsider and modify grandfathering provisions.

    24. Given this history, and recognizing broadcaster interest in maintaining the economies of scale and scope achieved through station combinations, if the Commission modifies the cap and/or the UHF discount, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should allow full, intact transferability without divestitures of grandfathered station groups. If the Commission adopts a rule change as a result of this proceeding that necessitates the grandfathering of existing, noncompliant station groups, it seeks comment on the appropriate date for triggering such grandfathering. The Commission also seeks comment on any other alternatives to grandfathering and transferability of non-compliant station groups. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any new grandfathering issues arising from the questions posed in this NPRM or presented in initial comments filed in response.

    Procedral Matters

    25. Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the Electronic Comment Filing System available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    26. Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    27. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    28. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Brendan Holland of the Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, [email protected], (202) 418-2757.

    29. Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. The Commission seeks comment on whether, based on this NPRM, it should adopt any new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on any such information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    30. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified above. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    31. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. This NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's national television audience reach cap, including the discount afforded to UHF stations. Earlier this year, the Commission reinstated the UHF discount, which provides a 50 percent discount to UHF stations for purposes of calculating compliance with the 39 percent audience reach cap. In reinstating the discount, the Commission found that the earlier decision to eliminate the discount had effectively tightened the cap without considering whether the overall cap remained in the public interest, particularly in light of changes to the video marketplace. The Commission found this action to be arbitrary and capricious and unwise from a public policy perspective. This NPRM seeks to rectify the Commission's prior error and undertake a broader assessment of the national audience cap, including the UHF discount. This NPRM asks whether the Commission should modify or eliminate the current 39 percent national audience reach cap, and whether to grandfather any newly non-compliant combinations and if so, how.

    32. Legal Basis. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this NPRM is contained in Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303(r), 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    33. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (SBA). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

    34. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The Small Business Administration has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable size.

    35. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,378. Of this total, 1,263 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on May 9, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

    36. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.

    37. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. If the Commission determines that it should modify or eliminate the current 39 percent national audience reach cap or permanently eliminate or modify the UHF discount, this action could require modification of certain FCC forms and their instructions, possibly including: (1) FCC Form 301, Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station; (2) FCC Form 314, Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License; and (3) FCC Form 315, Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporation Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License. The Commission may also have to modify other forms that include in their instructions the media ownership rules or citations to media ownership proceedings, including Form 303-S, Application for Renewal License for AM, FM, TV, Translator, or LPTV Station and Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Station. The impact of these changes will be the same on all entities, and the Commission does not anticipate that compliance will require the expenditure of any additional resources or place additional burdens on small businesses.

    38. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    39. The Commission has previously concluded that the national audience reach cap is intended to promote its public interest goal of localism. We seek comment on whether this rule or any modified rule is necessary at this time to serve localism and, if not, whether any rule is necessary to serve our goals of viewpoint diversity and competition in the video marketplace or other goals such as innovation. The NPRM seeks comment on the need for, and efficacy of, a national audience reach cap and UHF discount or other type of limit in light of significant changes in the video marketplace since the Commission last reviewed the cap and discount together. Assuming some limit is necessary, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should retain or modify the existing audience reach cap and UHF discount; retain the audience reach cap but adopt a different weighting methodology; adopt a limit based on some other measurement of a station group's size or influence, such as actual viewership, market share, or advertising revenue; or adopt a more flexible alternative such as a threshold screen that would trigger a more detailed analysis, an automatic presumption or safe harbor, either in lieu of or in addition to a bright line cap. The NPRM invites comment on the effects of any proposed rule changes on different types of broadcasters (e.g., independent or network-affiliated), the costs and benefits associated with any proposals, and any potential to have significant impact on small entities. The Commission expects to further consider the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM and this IRFA.

    40. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule. None.

    41. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303(r), 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended the NPRM is adopted.

    42. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01404 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Denial of petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. William H. Thompson III requesting NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Specifically, Mr. Thompson requested we revise the activation process for red and amber signal warning lamps on school buses to require a new intermediate step during which both colors are activated simultaneously and flash in an alternating pattern and that we decouple the process by which lamps transition to the red-only configuration from the opening of the bus entrance door. NHTSA is denying this petition because Mr. Thompson has not identified a safety need to justify making changes he requested, and Mr. Thompson did not provide persuasive quantitative data to show adopting his requested changes would result in a net benefit to safety.

    DATES:

    The petition is denied as of January 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-1810; Fax: 202-366-7002) or Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of the Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax: 202-366-3820). You may mail these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. The Petition

    On October 28, 2012, NHTSA received a letter from Mr. William H. Thompson III containing a petition for rulemaking to amend certain aspects of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108 relating to school buses equipped with red and amber signal warning lamps.1 In his petition, Mr. Thompson requested NHTSA add an intermediate lamp configuration to the activation process for signal warning lamps between the existing amber-only and red-only configurations during which the amber and red lamps are both activated and alternate flashing. Additionally, he requested the transition from this intermediate amber-and-red configuration to the red-only configuration be controlled by a timer rather than by the bus door opening mechanism. Mr. Thompson stated adding an intermediate amber-and-red configuration that is activated for a fixed period of time would improve the effectiveness with warning other drivers when the bus is stopping for children as compared to the existing system. According to Mr. Thompson, these changes would reduce confusion regarding the meaning of signal warning lamps, which could in turn reduce the frequency with which other drivers engage in unsafe driving behaviors such as illegally passing school buses while their red signal warning lamps are activated (so-called “stop-arm violations”).

    1 Since Mr. Thompson filed his petition, NHTSA issued a final rule reorganizing almost all aspects of FMVSS No. 108. This final rule did not make any substantive changes to the standard and did not affect our analysis of Mr. Thompson's petition. However, it did rearrange paragraphs within the standard, and as a result, paragraph numbers Mr. Thompson cited in his petition are no longer accurate.

    FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, currently requires new school buses be equipped with four red signal warning lamps and allows for the optional installation of four amber signal warning lamps. The red lamps must be placed on the front and rear of the bus cab (two on the front and two on the rear) as high and as far apart as practicable, with optional amber lamps placed inboard of red lamps. Under the existing signal warning lamp activation requirements, a school bus driver manually activates the amber signal warning lamps by actuating a switch to indicate to other drivers that the bus is preparing to pick up or drop off children. Amber lamps stay activated until the driver opens the bus entrance door, at which time amber lamps automatically deactivate and red lamps automatically activate to indicate children are in the process of boarding or offloading the bus.

    Mr. Thompson argued, in his petition, the current signal warning lamp activation process causes uncertainty among other drivers, and this uncertainty constitutes a safety need that justifies amending FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, Mr. Thompson claimed current signal warning lamps do not effectively communicate when the bus will begin the process of picking up or dropping off children because amber lamps do not transition to red until the bus door is actually open (i.e., until boarding or offloading has begun). According to Mr. Thompson, this uncertainty among other drivers leads to “risk factors” in the form of unsafe driving behaviors, such as “passing school buses while the red signal lamps are flashing and stop arm is extended and being cited by law enforcement, making a `panic stop' to avoid passing the school bus as not to break the law and making a sudden stop and having a following motorist caught unaware.” These risk factors, in turn, could lead to injury or death of children and other road users.

    To address this perceived safety risk, Mr. Thompson requested NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 108 to revise activation requirements for school bus signal warning lamps so they more clearly indicate the status of the school bus to other drivers. Per his petition, upon approaching a bus stop, the bus driver would activate amber flashing signal lamps by actuating a switch as is done under the existing rule. However, as the bus makes its final approach, the bus driver would actuate the signal warning lamp switch a second time, which would activate an intermediate signal warning lamp configuration during which amber and red signal warning lamps are activated and alternate flashing. This new configuration would be activated for a fixed period (the petition suggests approximately 3 seconds) after which the signal warning lamp system would automatically progress to a red-only configuration and the stop sign would deploy. The transition to the red-only configuration signals other drivers to come to a complete stop and indicates to the bus driver it is safe to open the bus door to pick up or drop off children. According to Mr. Thompson, a 3 second intermediate step is sufficiently long to warn other drivers that the bus is preparing to stop, which will reduce some of risk factors described above.

    II. Agency Analysis

    We are denying Mr. Thompson's petition on two bases. First, we do not believe confusion over the meaning of school bus signal warning lamps is a safety need that must be addressed by amending the lighting standard. Second, Mr. Thomson has not provided data persuasively demonstrating changes he proposed would lead to a net benefit for vehicle safety. We explain our reasoning in more detail below.

    a. Mr. Thompson has not demonstrated that uncertainty over the meaning of signal warning lamps is a safety need that must be addressed.

    Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the “Safety Act”) for the purpose of “reduc[ing] traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.” 2 To accomplish this, the Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to promulgate FMVSSs as well as to engage in other activities such as research and development. Because NHTSA has limited resources with which to accomplish goals of the Safety Act, the agency must make choices about how to most effectively and efficiently allocate resources. Accordingly, we will not take action under our Safety Act authority if we do not believe doing so will further interests of vehicle safety. In the context of petitions for rulemaking filed under 49 CFR part 552, this means we will not grant a petition to amend an FMVSS unless we believe doing so will address a traffic-related safety need.

    2 49 U.S.C. 30111.

    Mr. Thompson has not shown such a safety need exists in this case. As noted earlier, Mr. Thompson argued in his petition that confusion over the meaning of signal warning lamps is a significant safety risk because it leads to unsafe driving behavior around school buses. To make his case, Mr. Thompson cited several sources, including two NHTSA publications (one survey and one guidance document) and two State-sponsored studies of stop-arm violations.3 While we agree with Mr. Thompson that these sources support the conclusion that school bus stop-arm violations are a problem, they do not support Mr. Thompson's assertion that stop-arm violations and other unsafe driving behavior is because of uncertainty over signal warning lamps.

    3 In addition to these studies, Mr. Thompson provided other types of evidence. For example, Mr. Thompson stated “expert evidence” indicates drivers who see amber lamps tend to speed up to try and “get past the bus” before red lamps activate. Mr. Thompson asserted signal warning lamp systems could potentially be misused under existing requirements but admitted the sort of misuse he described is “probably not a common occurrence.” However, because this information is unsourced and anecdotal, we cannot use it as a basis in our evaluation for concluding a safety risk exists.

    We will first address the two NHTSA publications Mr. Thompson cited. The first NHTSA publication was our 1997 National Survey on Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes and Behaviors, which contains a finding that 99 percent of drivers believed stop-arm violations were the most egregious type of moving violation.4 As the title suggests, this is a survey of public opinion; it does not make any conclusions based on empirical data about the frequency or cause of stop-arm violations and does not contain information relevant to evaluating whether these violations are because of uncertainty regarding the meaning of signal warning lamps. The other NHTSA publication Mr. Thompson cited was our 2000 Best Practices Guide on Reducing Illegal Passing of School Buses.5 This publication does not include empirical data supporting Mr. Thompson's proposal. Moreover, the policy proposal this document contains focuses on addressing the problem of stop-arm violations through a combination of educational and enforcement initiatives, not changes to FMVSS No. 108.

    4 DOT HS 809 688, available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/drowsy_driving1/speed_volII_finding/SpeedVolumeIIFindingsFinal.pdf. (Please note that the survey was updated in 2002, but kept the same DOT HS number).

    5 Available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/buses/2000schoolbus/index.htm.

    The two State-sponsored studies Mr. Thompson cited do not support Mr. Thompson's proposition that uncertainty over signal warning lamps is a safety risk. The first study Mr. Thompson cited was conducted by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.6 That study documented occurrences of stop-arm violations but does not establish their underlying causes.7 The second study Mr. Thompson cited was sponsored by the Florida Department of Education.8 Unlike the North Carolina study, the Florida study drew conclusions regarding causes of stop-arm violations, stating “while many motorists clearly do not understand the law as it applies to this situation, many more motorists are, in fact, intentionally violating the law.”

    6 Available at http://www.ncbussafety.org/StopArmViolationCamera/.

    7 In a more recent study conducted in October 2013 by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, authors explicitly stated the question of why stop-arm violations occur must be studied further, and confusing signal warning lamps are just one of several possible reasons for this problems. See Pilot Testing of a School Bus Stop Arm Camera System (October 2013), available at http://www.ncbussafety.org/StopArmViolationCamera/documents/2013%2010%2030%20Final%20ITRE_stoparm_Camera_report.pdf.

    8 University of South Florida College of Engineering, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Motorist Comprehension of Florida's School Bus Stop Law and School Bus Signalization Devices: Final Report (June 1997), available at https://www.cutr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/school.pdf.

    While the publications Mr. Thompson cited may demonstrate stop-arm violations are a safety problem, they do not support his conclusion that uncertainty over the meaning of signal warning lamps constitutes a safety need that must be addressed through amendments to FMVSS No. 108. None of the publications he cited link uncertainty regarding the meaning of signal warning lamps to unsafe driving behaviors in any significant way, and in fact could be read as supporting the opposite conclusion—drivers understand the signal warning lamps but (at least in some instances) are simply choosing to ignore them.

    b. Mr. Thompson has not provided us with data showing persuasive evidence that the change he proposes will provide a positive effect on safety.

    As we explained in our 1998 statement of policy on signal lighting, when evaluating petitions to add or amend signal lighting requirements, we look at whether the petitioner has provided data that “show[s] persuasive evidence of a positive safety impact.” 9 If we cannot determine the change will positively affect safety, “NHTSA will not change its regulations to permit the new signal lighting idea, because that would negatively affect standardization of signal lighting.” In other words, a petitioner requesting an amendment to an existing signal lighting requirement must provide data persuading us the change will have a benefit to safety outweighing detriments to safety that will occur because of reduced standardization of signal lighting.

    9 Statement of Policy, 63 FR 59482 (Nov. 4, 1998).

    Because NHTSA does not have resources to sponsor research on most of the lighting ideas proposed, we rely on petitioners to provide us with data to evaluate whether a requested change to signal lighting requirements will provide a net benefit to vehicle safety. Mr. Thompson's petition did not provide us with such data. Rather, information Mr. Thompson provided falls into one of two categories: Information supporting the general assertion stop-arm violations are a problem (i.e., the studies described in the previous section), or information explaining how he developed specific aspects of this proposal (i.e., he chose a duration of 3 seconds for the intermediate lamp configuration because that is the duration of the yellow light on a traffic signal for 25 mile-per-hour traffic). Mr. Thompson's petition included no clear data demonstrating the changes he proposed would be beneficial for vehicle safety.

    Given that Mr. Thompson did not provide proof of an offsetting safety benefit, we are concerned the changes he proposed may lead to a decrease in vehicle safety because they would disrupt signal light standardization, which could cause driver confusion. As we have explained repeatedly through years of letters of interpretation,10 as well as our prior responses to other petitions made under Part 552,11 the effectiveness of all signal lamps (including school bus signal warning lamps) is premised on driver familiarity with established lighting schemes. For decades, the knowledge that flashing amber signal warning lamps on a school bus indicate a school bus is preparing to stop and flashing red signal warning lamps indicate children are boarding or offloading, has been ingrained in the mind of the driving public. Changing how school bus warning lamps operate by adding Mr. Thompson's intermediate configuration would disrupt this well-understood scheme. This could increase driver confusion until such time all buses use the new lighting scheme and drivers become familiar with the new lighting scheme.

    10See, e.g., letter to James A. Haigh (April 8, 2008), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/07-005005as.htm.

    11See, e.g., NovaBUS, Inc.: Denial of Application for Decision of Inconsequential Compliance, 67 FR 31862 (May 10, 2002).

    Relatedly, we are also concerned about Mr. Thompson's other proposal to tie the activation of the red-only signal warning lamp configuration to a 3 second timer rather than to the opening of the bus entrance door. The current standard requires amber signal warning lamps deactivate and red signal warning lamps activate automatically upon the opening of the bus entrance door. Under this system, red lamps are only ever activated when the bus is in the process of picking up or dropping off children. By contrast, under Mr. Thompson's scheme, the red-only configuration necessarily activates before bus doors open. This could confuse drivers who have learned red signal warning lamps are only activated when children are in the process of boarding or offloading.

    Finally, we note the Florida-sponsored study discussed in the previous section found significant driver confusion over the legal obligations applying to drivers when they encounter a school bus with flashing signal warning lamps. (This is distinct from the confusion Mr. Thompson identifies as a safety risk, which is over the meaning of the signal warning lamps themselves.) Given there is evidence drivers are already confused about laws relating to stop-arm violations, we do not think it would be beneficial for safety to make the signal warning lamp activation sequence more complex than it already is (as would be the case under Mr. Thompson's request).

    For these reasons in accordance with 49 CFR part 552, Mr. Thompson's October 28, 2012, petition for rulemaking is denied.

    Issued on January 12, 2018, in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. Heidi R. King, Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01403 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 171017999-8036-01] RIN 0648-BH32 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed Season AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would change the recreational fishing year and modify the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purposes of this proposed rule and the framework action are to constrain recreational harvest to assist in ending overfishing, and to rebuild the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf, while maximizing optimum yield (OY) of the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0149” by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0149, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Kelli O'Donnell, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2017/GAJ_Fishing%20Year/final_action_modify_rec_fishing_yr.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    Background

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and to achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation.

    The greater amberjack resource in the Gulf was declared overfished by NMFS on February 9, 2001. The most recent Southeast Data Assessment and Review stock assessment was completed in 2016, and indicated the Gulf greater amberjack stock remained overfished, was undergoing overfishing, and would not be rebuilt by 2019, as was previously estimated. In response to the assessment results, the Council established new annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs) (codified as quotas) that will be effective on January 27, 2018 (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017). Under these new harvest levels, NMFS estimates the Gulf greater amberjack stock will be rebuilt by 2027. The Council also modified recreational fixed closed season from June through July each year to January through June. The Council intended this change to the fixed closed season to be a short-term measure to protect the Gulf greater amberjack stock during its spawning season (March through April) and allow the Council time to develop this current framework action and proposed rule to establish two separate recreational fishing seasons.

    Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would revise the recreational fishing year and the recreational closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf.

    Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year

    The current Gulf recreational fishing year for greater amberjack is January 1 through December 31 and was established in the original FMP (49 FR 39548; October 9, 1984). This proposed rule would revise the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fishing year to be August 1 through July 31. This change would allow for greater amberjack harvest to occur later in the year and provide an opportunity to harvest greater amberjack when harvest of many other reef fish species is prohibited due to in-season quota closures. Starting the fishing year in August, when fishing effort is lower, is also expected to result in enough quota remaining to allow for fishing during May of the following calendar year.

    Consistent with the change in the fishing year, this proposed rule would revise the years associated with the greater amberjack recreational ACLs and quotas. Currently, the recreational ACLs and quotas are defined by the calendar year, which is also the fishing year. With the proposed change to the recreational fishing year, the recreational ACLs and quotas would apply across calendar years. Therefore, this proposed rule would assign the recently implemented 2018 ACL and quota to the remainder of the August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018, recreational fishing year. The 2019 recreational ACL and quota would correspond to the 2018-2019 recreational fishing year, and the recreational ACL and quota for 2020 and beyond would correspond to all subsequent fishing years.

    Greater Amberjack Recreational Closed Season

    The final rule for Amendment 35 to the FMP established a greater amberjack recreational closed season from June 1 to July 31 to restrict harvest during times of peak fishing (77 FR 67574; November 13, 2012). This closed season was expected to reduce harvest enough to avoid an in-season closure as a result of the quota being met. However, the recreational sector has closed early each year since 2014. Therefore, the Council decided to modify the recreational closed season. As explained above, NMFS recently published a final rule that changed the closed season from June through July each year to January through June (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017) to allow the Council the time to further modify the closed season to create two separate recreational fishing seasons.

    This proposed rule would modify the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack to be from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. This means that recreational harvest would be allowed in May and from August through October each calendar year unless an in-season closure was necessary to constrain harvest to the recreational quota. Because this proposed rule would also change the recreational fishing year, NMFS would begin monitoring landings as compared to the applicable quota on August 1 each year and, therefore, any in-season quota closure would occur later in the fall or during May of the following year. The proposed recreational fixed closed season is expected to reduced landings, which would reduce the likelihood of an in-season closure and recreational landings exceeding the recreational ACL. This rulemaking is also expected to protect greater amberjack during peak spawning months in the majority of the Gulf (March through April), thereby contributing to rebuilding the greater amberjack stock within the rebuilding time period.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:

    A description of the proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The proposed rule would modify the recreational greater amberjack fishing year and fixed closed season. As a result, this proposed rule would affect recreational anglers and federally permitted charter vessels and headboats (for-hire) fishing for greater amberjack in the Gulf. Only recreational anglers are directly affected by this proposed rule, and they are not considered business entities under the RFA. For-hire vessels would be affected by this action but only in an indirect way. For-hire businesses (charter vessels and headboats) operate in the recreational sector, but these businesses only sell fishing services to recreational anglers. For-hire vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision by anglers to purchase these services. Because the effects on for-hire vessels would be indirect, they fall outside the scope of the RFA.

    The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing season, Fishing year, Greater amberjack, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.

    Dated: January 19, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.7, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 622.7 Fishing years.

    (h) Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack recreational sector—August 1 through July 31. (Note: The fishing year for the commercial sector for greater amberjack is January 1 through December 31).

    3. In § 622.34, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 622.34 Seasonal and area closures designed to protect Gulf reef fish.

    (c) Seasonal closure of the recreational sector for greater amberjack. The recreational sector for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.

    4. In § 622.39, revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 622.39 Quotas.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Recreational quota for greater amberjack.

    (A) For the 2017-2018 fishing year—716,173 lb (324,851 kg).

    (B) For the 2018-2019 fishing year—902,185 lb (409,224 kg).

    (C) For the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years—1,086,985 lb (493,048 kg).

    5. In § 622.41, revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) The applicable recreational ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 862,860 lb (391,387 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 1,309,620 lb (594,034 kg) for 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01374 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 18 Friday, January 26, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 23, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by February 26, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Volunteer Programs.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0232.

    Summary of Collection: Section 1526 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 2272) permits the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to use volunteers to perform a wide range of activities to carry out the programs of or supported by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each USDA agency is granted the authority to establish programs designed to provide educationally related work assignments for students in non-pay status. USDA, Departmental Regulation 4230-1 requires documentation of service performed without compensation by persons who do not receive Federal appointment. For this requirement, the information collection request is necessary to continue implementation of the programs, which allows the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Risk Management Agency (RMA) to use volunteers to perform a wide range of activities to carry out the programs of or supported by the Agency.

    Need and Use of the Information: Applicants who are accepted in the program will complete the “Service Agreement and Attendance Record.” FSA and RMA will use the reported information to respond to request for information on volunteers from the USDA Office of Human Resources Management. If the information were not collected for each volunteer, FSA and RMA would be unable to document service performed without compensation by persons in the program if this information were not collected for each volunteer.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 20.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 30.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01412 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Miscellaneous Short Supply Activities AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security.

    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 March 27, 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 Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This information collection is comprised of two rarely used short supply activities: “Registration of U.S. Agricultural Commodities for Exemption from Short Supply Limitations On Export”, and “Petitions for The Imposition of Monitoring or Controls On Recyclable Metallic materials; Public Hearings.” These activities are statutory in nature and, therefore, must remain a part of BIS's information collection budget authorization.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted in paper form.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0102.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 201 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 201.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01323 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-853] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan: Amended Preliminary Results and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from Taiwan covering the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    January 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3936.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 10, 2017, Commerce published a notice initiating an antidumping administrative review of solar products from Taiwan covering 34 companies for the POR.1 On December 20, 2017, Commerce published the preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review and partial rescission of antidumping duty administrative review.2 In this notice, Commerce stated incorrectly that 23 of the 34 companies 3 listed in the Initiation Notice had withdrawn their requests for administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).4 Actually, neither petitioner nor any of the 23 companies had withdrawn requests for administrative review. Thus, all 23 companies remain under review.

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188, 17189 (April 10, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 82 FR 60370 (Dec 20, 2017) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Results).

    3 Commerce stated that the following companies had withdrawn requests for administrative review: Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co Ltd., Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co Ltd., Boviet Solar Technology Co., Ltd., Canadian Solar Inc., Canadian Solar International, Ltd., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Canadian Solar Solution Inc., E-TON Solar Tech. Co., Ltd., Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Inventec Energy Corporation, Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Sunengine Corporation Ltd., Sunrise Global Solar Energy, Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (Schweiz) AG, Trina Solar (Singapore) Science and Technology Pte Ltd., Win Win Precision Technology Co., Ltd., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd., and Yingli Green Energy International Trading Company Limited.

    4See Letter from AU Optronics et al., “Re: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan—Comment on Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, dated December 22, 2017; see also Letter from Canadian Solar Inc. et al., “Re: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan (02/01/2016—01/31/2017): Comments Opposing Decision to Rescind Review for Canadian Solar Entities,” dated December 27, 2017.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Of the 23 companies at issue, 14 companies filed timely statements reporting that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Based on the certifications submitted by these companies and our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, we preliminarily determine that these 14 companies had no shipments during the POR.5 Given that these companies certified that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and there is no information calling their claims into question, we preliminarily determine that these companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. Commerce will issue a no-shipment inquiry to CBP requesting that it review these no-shipment claims. Consistent with Commerce's practice, we will not rescind the review, but, rather, will complete the review and issue instructions to CBP based on the final results.6

    5See certifications of no shipments filed by Sunengine Corporation Ltd, dated April 24, 2017, and certifications of no shipments filed by Boviet Solar Technology Co., Ltd, Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd., Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd., and Yingli Green Energy International Trading Company Limited, dated May 10, 2017. See also Letter from Inventec Solar Energy Corporation and its affiliates, dated April 24, 2017 (certifying that E-TON Solar Tech. Co., Ltd., and Inventec Energy Corporation had no shipments).

    6See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 79 FR 15951, 15952 (March 24, 2014), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission of Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 51306, 51307 (August 28, 2014).

    Rate for Companies Not Individually Examined

    Of the 23 companies at issue, the remaining nine are non-selected respondents. Consistent with our preliminary results and Commerce's practice, we preliminarily assign to these nine companies the Motech Industries Inc.7 preliminary rate of 1.07 percent. See table below.

    7See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 60371.

    Manufacturer/
  • exporter
  • Weighted-average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Canadian Solar Inc 1.07 Canadian Solar International, Ltd 1.07 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc 1.07 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc 1.07 Canadian Solar Solution Inc 1.07 Sunrise Global Solar Energy 1.07 Trina Solar (Schweiz) AG 1.07 Trina Solar (Singapore) Science and Technology Pte Ltd 1.07 Win Win Precision Technology Co., Ltd 1.07
    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of solar products from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 19.50 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    8See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 79 FR 76966 (December 23, 2014).

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: January 18, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistance Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01446 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-836] Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the final remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period of March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. (Baoding Mantong).

    DATES:

    Applicable January 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madeline Heeren or Edythe Artman, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9179 or (202) 482-3931, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On October 18, 2012, Commerce published the Final Results, 1 in which it determined Baoding Mantong to have a weight-averaged dumping margin of 453.79 percent for the period under review. On November 3, 2015, the Court remanded these results to Commerce for reconsideration of all aspects of its determination of the margin assigned to Baoding Mantong in the Final Results. 2 In the final results of redetermination, Commerce relied on surrogate financial information that resulted in a dumping margin of 64.97 percent.3 On April 19, 2017, the Court remanded the revised results to Commerce for reconsideration of the selection of certain surrogate values in its determination of the margin assigned to Baoding Mantong.4 In its second final results of redetermination, Commerce revised the surrogate values for three inputs—liquid ammonia, formaldehyde and steam coal—which resulted in a dumping margin of 0.00 percent.5 On December 20, 2017, the Court sustained the Second Results of Redetermination.6

    1See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 64100 (October 18, 2012) (Final Results).

    2See Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00362, Slip Op. 15-123 (CIT November 3, 2015).

    3SeeFinal Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,” dated March 29, 2017.

    4See Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00362, Slip Op. 17-44 (CIT April 19, 2017).

    5SeeFinal Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,” dated July 18, 2017 (Second Results of Redetermination).

    6See Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12-00362, Slip Op. 17-169 (CIT December 20, 2017).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 7 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 8 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's December 20, 2017, final judgment sustaining the Second Results of Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the Timken publication requirements. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    7See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    8See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Baoding Mantong. Based on the Second Results of Redetermination, as sustained by the CIT, the revised dumping margin for Baoding Mantong, for the period March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011, is as follows:

    Producer or exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. 0.00

    In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise with respect to Baoding Mantong.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Results, Commerce has established a new cash deposit rate for Baoding Mantong.9 Therefore, the cash deposit rate for Baoding Mantong will remain the company-specific rate established for it in a subsequent and most recently completed administrative review.10

    9See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 62027 (October 15, 2015).

    10Id. at 62028.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 17, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01445 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting

    SUMMARY:

    The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (REEEAC) will hold a meeting on Thursday, May 10, 2018 at the U.S. Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.

    DATE:

    May 10, 2018, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance with Victoria Gunderson at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, May 4, 2018, in order to pre-register, including any requests to make comments during the meeting or for accommodations or auxiliary aids.

    ADDRESSES:

    To register, please contact Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the REEEAC pursuant to discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), on July 14, 2010. The REEEAC was re-chartered most recently on June 9, 2016. The REEEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with consensus advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to expand the export competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency products and services.

    On May 10, the REEEAC will hold the seventh, and final, in-person meeting of its current charter term and hold REEEAC sub-committee working sessions, discuss next steps for each sub-committee (Export Competitiveness, Market Access, and Finance), consider recommendations for approval, and hear from officials from the Department of Commerce and other agencies on major issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. An agenda will be made available by May 4 upon request.

    The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, May 4, 2018. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Ms. Gunderson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.

    Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW; Mail Stop: 4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, May 4, 2018, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

    Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.

    Dated: January 19, 2018. Man Cho, Deputy Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01335 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting

    SUMMARY:

    The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (REEEAC) will hold a meeting on Thursday, February 22, 2018 at the U.S. Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.

    DATES:

    February 22, 2018, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance with Victoria Gunderson at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, February 16, 2018, in order to pre-register, including any requests to make comments during the meeting or for accommodations or auxiliary aids.

    ADDRESSES:

    To register, please contact Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Secretary of Commerce established the REEEAC pursuant to discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), on July 14, 2010. The REEEAC was re-chartered most recently on June 9, 2016. The REEEAC provides the Secretary of Commerce with consensus advice from the private sector on the development and administration of programs and policies to expand the export competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency products and services.

    On February 22, the REEEAC will hold the sixth in-person meeting of its charter term, hold REEEAC sub-committee working sessions, discuss next steps for each sub-committee (Export Competitiveness, Market Access, and Finance), consider recommendations for approval, and hear from officials from the Department of Commerce and other agencies on major issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Agenda will be made available by February 16 upon request.

    The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, February 16, 2018. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Ms. Gunderson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.

    Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW; Mail Stop: 4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, February 16, 2018, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

    Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.

    Dated: January 19, 2018. Man Cho, Deputy Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01334 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-817] Ripe Olives From Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Applicable January 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cartsos, Bryan Hansen, or Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1757, (202) 482-3683, or (202) 482-0189, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 12, 2017.1 On November 16, 2017, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now January 18, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included at Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Ripe Olives from Spain: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 82 FR 33054 (July 19, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Ripe Olives from Spain: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation, 82 FR 53479 (November 16, 2017).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of ripe Olives from Spain,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is ripe olives from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). Both Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L. (AG) and Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L. (Camacho) stated that cocktail mixes are out of the scope. Without any further elaboration, the petitioners commented that AG and Camacho cannot unilaterally decided what is in or outside the scope. For this preliminary determination, Commerce is not modifying the scope and is including cocktail mixes in our analysis. We will further evaluate this issue for purposes of the final determination.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for AG, Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP Anndalusia, and Camacho that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Commerce calculated the all-others rate using a weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents using each company's business proprietary data for the merchandise under consideration.5

    5 For a complete analysis of the data, see Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Ripe Olives from Spain: Calculation of the All-Others Rate,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Preliminary Determination

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L 16.80 Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP Anndalusia 14.64 Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L 19.73 All-Others 17.13
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Because Commerce preliminarily did not make an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has not offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by a CVD rate.6

    6See Ripe Olives from Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 56218 (November 20, 2017).

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    7See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On December 14, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), certain exporters of subject merchandise requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.8 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    8See Letter from Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa (ASEMESA), Industria Aceiyunera Marciense, S.A., DCOOP, S. COOP. AND., Agro Sevilla Aceitunas, SOC. COOP. AND., Plasoliva, S.L., GOYA en Espana, S.A.U., Aceitunas Guadalquivir, S.L., Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L., Internacional Olivarera S.A., F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., and Aceitunas Sevillanas S.A., “Request to Postpone the Final Antidumping Determination: Ripe Olives from Spain,” dated December 14, 2017.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: January 18, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives.” The subject merchandise includes all colors of olives; all shapes and sizes of olives, whether pitted or not pitted, and whether whole, sliced, chopped, minced, wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in size; all types of packaging, whether for consumer (retail) or institutional (food service) sale, and whether canned or packaged in glass, metal, plastic, multi-layered airtight containers (including pouches), or otherwise; and all manners of preparation and preservation, whether low acid or acidified, stuffed or not stuffed, with or without flavoring and/or saline solution, and including in ambient, refrigerated, or frozen conditions.

    Included are all ripe olives grown, processed in whole or in part, or packaged in Spain. Subject merchandise includes ripe olives that have been further processed in Spain or a third country, including but not limited to curing, fermenting, rinsing, oxidizing, pitting, slicing, chopping, segmenting, wedging, stuffing, packaging, or heat treating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in Spain.

    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty olives 9 (including “Spanish-style,” “Sicilian-style,” and other similar olives) that have been processed by fermentation only, or by being cured in an alkaline solution for not longer than 12 hours and subsequently fermented; and (2) provisionally prepared olives unsuitable for immediate consumption (currently classifiable in subheading 0711.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)).

    9 Some of the major types of specialty olives and their curing methods are:

    • “Spanish-style” green olives. Spanish-style green olives have a mildly salty, slightly bitter taste, and are usually pitted and stuffed. This style of olive is primarily produced in Spain and can be made from various olive varieties. Most are stuffed with pimento; other popular stuffings are jalapeno, garlic, and cheese. The raw olives that are used to produce Spanish-style green olives are picked while they are unripe, after which they are submerged in an alkaline solution for typically less than a day to partially remove their bitterness, rinsed, and fermented in a strong salt brine, giving them their characteristic flavor.

    • “Sicilian-style” green olives. Sicilian-style olives are large, firm green olives with a natural bitter and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in small quantities in the United States using a Sevillano variety of olive and harvested green with a firm texture. Sicilian-style olives are processed using a brine-cured method, and undergo a full fermentation in a salt and lactic acid brine for 4 to 9 months. These olives may be sold whole unpitted, pitted, or stuffed.

    • “Kalamata” olives: Kalamata olives are slightly curved in shape, tender in texture, and purple in color, and have a rich natural tangy and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in Greece using a Kalamata variety olive. The olives are harvested after they are fully ripened on the tree, and typically use a brine-cured fermentation method over 4 to 9 months in a salt brine.

    • Other specialty olives in a full range of colors, sizes, and origins, typically fermented in a salt brine for 3 months or more.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 2005.70.0230, 2005.70.0260, 2005.70.0430, 2005.70.0460, 2005.70.5030, 2005.70.5060, 2005.70.6020, 2005.70.6030, 2005.70.6050, 2005.70.6060, 2005.70.6070, 2005.70.7000, 2005.70.7510, 2005.70.7515, 2005.70.7520, and 2005.70.7525 HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also be imported under subheadings 2005.70.0600, 2005.70.0800, 2005.70.1200, 2005.70.1600, 2005.70.1800, 2005.70.2300, 2005.70.2510, 2005.70.2520, 2005.70.2530, 2005.70.2540, 2005.70.2550, 2005.70.2560, 2005.70.9100, 2005.70.9300, and 2005.70.9700. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and US Customs purposes, they do not define the scope of the investigation; rather, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Product Characteristics VI. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VII. Date of Sale VIII. Product Comparisons IX. Export Price and Constructed Export Price X. Normal Value A. Comparison Market Viability B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test C. Level of Trade D. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test E. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices F. Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value XI. Currency Conversion XII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-01447 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF975 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a 5-day meeting in February/March to discuss Action 3 of the Island Based FMP, including the ABC control rule and its application to stock complexes, and the items contained in the agenda in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from February 26 to March 2, 2018, starting on Monday at 1 p.m. through Friday 12 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Council Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    —Call to Order —Adoption of Agenda —Overview

    Review outcomes from previous meeting.

    —Action 3: Management Reference Points for Stocks/Stock complexes in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John and St Croix FMPs —Tiered ABC Control Rule —Finalize process for determining the scalars used in Tiered ABC Control Rule —Finalize process for determining the buffer from the overfishing limit (OFL) to ABC (scientific uncertainty buffer) used in the Tiered ABC Control Rule. —Finalize choice of scalar and scientific uncertainty buffer for Tiers 4a and 4b for the applicable stocks. —Application of Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule Language —Review and Finalize process developed for the application of ABC CR to Tier 4a species with high CVs —Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) options —Stocks/stock complexes to which the Tiered ABC CR cannot be applied: —Recommendations on time series of landings data (year sequences) to establish reference points for the applicable stocks/stock complexes. —Recommendations on the establishment of the maximum sustainable yield proxy (e.g., mean, median, following the Caribbean Annual Catch Limit Amendments' approach) for the applicable stocks/stock complexes. — Recommendations on the scientific uncertainty buffer to determine the ABC for the applicable stocks/stock complexes. —Recommendations to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council —Other Business

    The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on February 26, 2018 at 1 p.m. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated. In addition, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01427 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF981 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tilefish Monitoring Committee of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, March 16, 2018, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 1 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their website at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for the Tilefish Monitoring Committee to recommend management measures designed to achieve recommended catch limits for the blueline and golden tilefish fisheries.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01430 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF950 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting (webinar).

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will hold a webinar meeting to review the 2018 update stock assessment for Pacific sardine. This webinar is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held Tuesday, March 6, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., or until business has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar, use this link: https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar (Click “Join a Webinar” in top right corner of page). (1) Enter the Webinar ID: 596-833-451. (2) Enter your name and email address (required). You must use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number 1-415-655-0060. (3) Enter the Attendee phone audio access code 376-071-500. (4) Enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). NOTE: We have disabled Mic/Speakers as an option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/ipad-iphone-android-webinar-apps). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or contact him at 503-820-2280, extension 411 for technical assistance.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review the 2018 update stock assessment for Pacific sardine. The Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Subcommittee of the Pacific Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will conduct the review, and will follow the Pacific Council's Terms of Reference for Stock Assessment Reviews. The Pacific Council will use the 2018 assessment to establish Pacific sardine fishery management measures and harvest specifications for the 2018-19 fishing year, which begins July 1 and ends the following June 30 each year. Representatives of the Council's CPS Management Team and the CPS Advisory Subpanel will also participate in the review, as advisers.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected]; phone: (503) 820-2411) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01422 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Permit Family of Forms AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 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 a revised, and continuing information collection described below, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before March 27, 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: Cliff Hutt, phone 301-427-8503 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for the revision and extension of a current information collection, which includes both vessel and dealer permits.

    Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for management of the Nation's marine fisheries. In addition, NMFS must comply with the United States' obligations under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). NMFS issues permits to fishing vessels and dealers in order to collect information necessary to comply with domestic and international obligations, secure compliance with regulations, and disseminate necessary information.

    Regulations at 50 CFR 635.4 require that vessels participating in commercial and recreational fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and dealers purchasing Atlantic HMS from a vessel obtain a Federal permit issued by NMFS. This action addresses the renewal of permit applications currently approved under PRA 0648-0327, including both vessel and Atlantic Tunas Dealer permits. Vessel permits include Atlantic Tunas (except Longline permits, which are approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0205), HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial permits. This action also includes the one-time requirement for commercial vessels greater than 20 meters in length to obtain a International Maritime Organization/Lloyd's Registry (IMO/LR) number.

    The primary reason for the revision of this information collection is to reflect that HMS International Trade Permits have been removed from this collection as they were discontinued in 2016, and replaced with the International Fishing Trade Permit (IFTP). The IFTP is covered under OMB Control No. 0648-0732. Thus, the burden and costs associated with renewal and issuance of an initial HMS ITP are no longer applicable to this collection of information.

    II. Method of Collection

    Methods of submittal include on line, email, and mail.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0327.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (request for revision and extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 39,571.

    Estimated Time per Response: Renewal of Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit application, 5 minutes; renewal applications for the following vessel permits—Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial, 10 minutes; initial Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit application, 15 minutes; initial applications for the following vessel permits—Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial, 35 minutes; One-time application for the IMO/LP number, 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,063.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $947,844.

    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: January 19, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01327 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF980 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tilefish Advisory Panel of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 1 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their website at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to create fishery performance reports for blueline and golden tilefish by the Council's Tilefish Advisory Panel. The intent of these reports is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the Advisory Panel members for the Tilefish specifications processes, including recommendations by the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01429 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF911 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of change of date for the SEDAR 51 Review Workshop for Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 51 assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper will consist of: A Data Workshop; an Assessment Workshop and series of Assessment webinars; and a Review Workshop. This notice is to indicate a change of date for the Review Workshop for SEDAR 51. The original Review Workshop dates were February 13-15, 2018. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 51 Review Workshop will be held from 9 a.m. on March 20, 2018 until 5 p.m. on March 22, 2018. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The SEDAR 51 Review Workshop will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Office, 2203 N Lois Ave, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The original notice published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2018 (83 FR 2963).

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshops and webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Review Workshop agenda are as follows:

    1. The Review Panel participants will review the stock assessment reports to determine if they are scientifically sound.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01453 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF976 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Committees.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Tuesday, February 13, 2018 through Thursday, February 15, 2018. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: The Hilton Garden Inn Raleigh/Crabtree Valley, 3912 Arrow Drive, Raleigh, NC 27612, telephone: (919) 703-2525.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's website, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible).

    Tuesday, February 13, 2018 Risk Policy Framework and MSE

    Council discussion on integration of more comprehensive social and economic analyses into MAFMC MSE model developed to evaluate Council risk policy and ABC Framework and risk policy and butterfish specifications.

    Climate Change and Fisheries

    Trends in average commercial fishing locations over time in response to shifts in species distribution and discuss future direction of Rutgers/MAFMC Climate Velocity COCA project.

    Wednesday, February 14, 2018 Ricks E Savage Award Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures

    Adopt 2018 Federal waters management measures (tabled motion from December 2017 meeting); review state proposals for 2018 February fishery; and, discuss progress on LOA Framework.

    Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Commercial Accountability Measures Framework—Meeting 2

    Review and approve preferred alternatives.

    Council Habitat Update

    Progress towards a Regional Fish Habitat Assessment; Council engagement on Offshore Wind Energy Planning; and, habitat projects of interest (GARFO/Habitat Conservation update).

    North Atlantic Right Whale 5-Year Review and Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Fishery Biological Opinions

    Update on the status of right whales and a summary of recent research; overview of consultation on commercial fisheries under Section 7 of the ESA; and, update on planned activities of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team under the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 2018.

    Thursday, February 15, 2018 Business Session

    Committee Reports; Executive Director's Report; Science Report (review final draft of EAFM Risk Assessment); Law Enforcement Reports; Organization Reports; and, Liaison Reports.

    Continuing and New Business

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01428 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Council Coordination Committee Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting; information regarding the agenda.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS will host a meeting of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), consisting of the Regional Fishery Management Council chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors on February 27-February 28, 2018. The intent of this meeting is to discuss issues of relevance to the Councils and NMFS, including issues related to the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. Agenda items include discussions on budget allocations for FY2018 and budget planning for FY2019; an update on current joint science initiatives, including Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management; the FY2018 legislative outlook; updates on aquaculture initiatives, Council Member voting recusals, the NMFS National Standard 1 implementation, Marine Recreational Information Program updates; and other topics related to implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. All sessions are open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 27, 2018, recess at 5 p.m. or when business is complete; and reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 2018, and adjourn by 4:30 p.m. or when business is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Capitol Hill, 550 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024, telephone 202-479-4000, fax 202-288-4627.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Fredieu: telephone 301-427-8505 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act established the CCC by amending Section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) of the MSA. The committee consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils authorized by the MSA or other Council members or staff. Updates to this meeting and additional information will be posted on http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/councils/ccc/ccc.htm when available.

    Proposed Agenda Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:30 a.m.—Morning session begins • Welcome/Introductions • NMFS Update & FY17 Priorities • Aquaculture Initiative Updates • Legislative Outlook • MSA Reauthorization & CCC Comments • Regulatory Reform Update • Management and Budget Update • Council Member Conflict of Interest and Recusal working group update • FOIA Guidance 5:15 p.m.—Adjourn for the day Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9 a.m.—Morning Session Begins • EBFM Regional Implementation • Electronic Monitoring Policy Development • MRIP Transition Implementation • BSIA Guidance Update • NS1 Technical Guidance Update • Other Business 4:15 p.m.—Adjourn for the day

    The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The CCC will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Brian Fredieu at 301-427-8505 at least five working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: January 22, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01389 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Date added to the Procurement List: February 25, 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:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 12/15/2017 (82 FR 240) and 12/22/2017 (82 FR 245), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: U.S. Coast Guard Station Atlantic City, 900 Beach Thorofare, Atlantic City, NJ Mandatory Source of Supply: Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., New York, NY Contracting Activity: U.S. Coast Guard, TRACEN CAPE MAY (00042) Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 6604 E. Rutter Ave., Hangar 32, Spokane, WA Mandatory Source of Supply: Good Works, Inc., Spokane, WA Contracting Activity: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine CTR Div Service Type: Mail and Supply Center Operations Service Mandatory for: DARPA Headquarters, 675 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Linden Resources, Inc., Arlington, VA Contracting Activity: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Deletions

    On 12/22/2017 (82 FR 245), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products below are no longer 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 additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products 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 deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN—Product Name: PSIN TO12M—Kit, Wee-Deliver Starter Mandatory Source of Supply: New Horizons Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI Contracting Activity: U.S. Postal Service NSNs—Product Names: 7920-01-512-4960—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 32 oz., Yellow 7920-01-512-8967—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 32 oz., White 7920-01-512-8970—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 32 oz., Red 7920-01-512-8971—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 32 oz., Orange 7920-01-512-9340—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 22 oz., Red 7920-01-512-9341—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 22 oz., Yellow 7920-01-512-9342—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 22 oz., Orange 7920-01-512-9344—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 22 oz., White 7920-01-512-9346—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 20 oz., Yellow 7920-01-513-4767—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 24 oz., Yellow 7920-01-513-4769—Mop Head, Wet, Looped-End, Anti-Microbial, 16 oz., Yellow Mandatory Source of Supply: Alphapointe, Kansas City, MO Contracting Activities: Department of Veterans Affairs, Strategic Acquisition Center, General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2018-01439 Filed 1-25-18; 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 a product and a service 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: February 25, 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: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, 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.

    Deletion

    The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Product NSN—Product Name: 8415-01-494-4605—Cover, Parachutists' and Ground Troops' Helmet, All Services, Snow Camouflage, ML Mandatory Source of Supply: Mount Rogers Community Services Board, Wytheville, VA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Service Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: GSA PBS Region 5, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 201 N Vermilion Street, Danville, IL Mandatory Source of Supply: Challenge Unlimited, Inc., Alton, IL Contracting Activity: Public Buildings Service, Acquisition Management Division Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2018-01444 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0001] Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated Processes AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the Bureau in assessing potential changes that can be implemented to the Bureau's Civil Investigative Demand (CID) processes, consistent with law, to consider whether any changes to the processes would be appropriate.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by March 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0001, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include Docket No. CFPB-2018-0001 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica Jackson Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Instructions: The Bureau encourages the early submission of comments. All submissions must include the document title and docket number. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G St NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern standard time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275.

    All submissions in response to this request for information, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general inquiries and submission process questions, please call Monica Jackson at (202) 435-7275.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the course of its investigatory activities, and as authorized by 12 U.S.C. 5562 and 12 CFR 1080.6, the Bureau issues CIDs to entities and persons whom the Bureau has reason to believe may have information relevant to a violation of the laws the Bureau enforces. These demands require recipients to provide the Bureau with information in varying forms: Most frequently some combination of written answers to interrogatories, written reports, documents, tangible things, and testimony. Recipients are required to produce the requested information to the Bureau, which uses such information to further investigations of potential violations of Federal consumer financial laws.

    To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its existing CID processes, the Bureau is, as described below, issuing this request for information seeking public comment on how best to achieve meaningful burden reduction or other improvement to the CID processes while continuing to achieve the Bureau's statutory and regulatory objectives.

    Overview of This Request for Information

    The Bureau is using this request for information to seek public input regarding the exercise of its authority to issue CIDs, including from entities who have received one or more CIDs from the Bureau, or members of the bar who represent these entities.

    The issuance of CIDs is an essential tool for fulfilling the Bureau's statutory mission of enforcing Federal consumer financial law. The Bureau issues CIDs in accordance with the law and in furtherance of its investigatory objectives. The Bureau understands, however, that responding to a CID can impose burdens on the recipients. Entities who have received one or more CIDs, members of the bar who represent these entities, and members of the public are likely to have useful information and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of the Bureau's existing processes related to CIDs. The Bureau is especially interested in better understanding how its processes related to CIDs may be updated, streamlined, or revised to better achieve the Bureau's statutory and regulatory objectives, while minimizing burdens, consistent with applicable law, and how to align the Bureau's CID processes with those of other agencies with similar authorities. Interested parties may also be well-positioned to identify those parts of the Bureau's processes related to CIDs that are most in need of improvement, and, thus, assist the Bureau in prioritizing and properly tailoring its review process. In short, engaging CID recipients, potential CID recipients, and the public in an open, transparent process will help inform the Bureau's review of its processes related to CIDs.

    Questions for Commenters

    To allow the Bureau to more effectively evaluate suggestions, the Bureau requests that, where possible, comments include:

    • Specific suggestions regarding any potential updates or modifications to the Bureau's practices regarding the formulation, issuance, or modification of CIDs consistent with the Bureau's regulatory and statutory objectives, including, in as much detail as possible, the potential update or modification, supporting data or other information such as cost information or information concerning alignment with the processes of other agencies with similar authorities; and

    • Specific identification of any aspects of the Bureau's CID processes that should not be modified, including supporting data or other information such as cost information or information concerning alignment with the processes of other agencies with similar authorities.

    The following list of questions represents a preliminary attempt by the Bureau to identify elements of Bureau processes related to CIDs on which it should immediately focus. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. In addressing these questions or others, the Bureau requests that commenters identify with specificity the Bureau regulations or practices at issue, providing legal citations where appropriate and available.

    The Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its civil investigative demand process, including but not limited to:

    1. The Bureau's processes for initiating investigations, including 12 CFR 1080.4's delegation of authority to initiate investigations to the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Assistant Directors of the Office of Enforcement;

    2. The Bureau's processes for the issuance of CIDs, including the non-delegable authority of the Director, Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Assistant Directors of the Office of Enforcement to issue CIDs;

    3. Specific steps that the Bureau could take to improve CID recipients' understanding of investigations, whether through the notification of purpose included in each CID or through other avenues, including facilitating a better understanding of the specific types of information sought by the CID;

    4. The nature and scope of requests included in Bureau CIDs, including whether topics, questions, or requests for written reports effectively achieve the Bureau's statutory and regulatory objectives, while minimizing burdens, consistent with applicable law, and the extent to which the meet and confer process helps achieve these objectives;

    5. The timeframes associated with each step of the Bureau's CID process, including return dates, and the specific timeframes for meeting and conferring, and petitioning to modify or set aside a CID;

    6. The Bureau's taking of testimony from an entity, including whether 12 CFR 1080.6(a)(4)(ii), and/or the Bureau's processes should be modified to make expressly clear that the standards applicable to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) also apply to the Bureau's taking of testimony from an entity;

    7. The Bureau's processes for handling the inadvertent production of privileged information, including whether 12 CFR 1080.8(c) and/or the Bureau's processes should be modified in order to make expressly clear that the standards applicable to Federal Rule of Evidence 502 also apply to documents inadvertently produced in response to a CID;

    8. The rights afforded to witnesses by 12 CFR 1080.9, including limitations on the role of counsel described in 12 CFR 1080.9(b) in light of the statutory delineation of objections set forth in 12 U.S.C. 5562(c)(13)(D)(iii);

    9. The Bureau's processes concerning meeting and conferring with recipients of CIDs, including, for example, negotiations regarding modifications and the delegation of authority to the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement and Deputy Assistant Directors of the Office of Enforcement to negotiate and approve the terms of satisfactory compliance with civil investigative demands and extending the time for compliance;

    10. The Bureau's requirements for responding to CIDs, including certification requirements, and the Bureau's CID document submission standards; and

    11. The Bureau's processes concerning CID recipients' petitions to modify or set aside Bureau CIDs, including:

    a. Whether it is appropriate for Bureau investigators to provide the Director with a statement setting out a response to the petition without serving that response on the petitioner;

    b. Whether petitions and the Director's orders should be made public, consistent with applicable laws; and

    c. The costs and benefits of the petition to modify or set aside process, vis-à-vis direct adjudication in Federal court, in light of the statutory requirement for the petition process and the fact that CIDs are not self-enforcing.

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

    Dated: January 18, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01435 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Acceptance of Group Application Under Public Law and Department of Defense Directive AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD Civilian/Military Service Review Board, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Under the provisions of Section 401, Public Law 95-202 and DoD Directive 100.20, the Department of Defense Civilian/Military Service Review Board has accepted an application on behalf of a group known as “Department of the Navy (DON) Civilian Special Agents who Served in Direct Support and Under Control of the DON within the Republic of Vietnam During the Period January 9, 1962 through May 7, 1975 (Vietnam War).” Persons with information or documentation pertinent to the determination of whether service of this group should be considered active military service to the Armed Forces of the United States are encouraged to submit such information or documentation within 60 days to the DoD Civilian/Military Service Review Board (DoD C/MSRB), 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700, Joint Base Andrews NAF, MD 20762-7002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Thomas R. Uiselt, Deputy Executive Secretary, DoD C/MSRB, at 240-612-5409, [email protected] Copies of documents or other materials submitted cannot be returned.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01308 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket Number DARS-2016-0033; OMB Control Number 0704-0332] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System 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 February 26, 2018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Appendix I, DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program; OMB Control Number 0704-0332.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 127.

    Responses per Respondent: 2, approximately.

    Annual Responses: 255.

    Average Burden per Response: 2.3 hours, approximately.

    Annual Burden Hours: 595.

    Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to ensure that participants in the Mentor-Protege Program (“the Program”) are fulfilling their obligations under the mentor-protege agreements and that the Government is receiving value for the benefits it provides through the Program. DoD uses the information as source data for reports to Congress required by section 811(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65). Participation in the Program is voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

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

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01478 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-61] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-61 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN26JA18.015 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-61 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $500 million Total $500 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None

    Non-MDE:

    Continued participation, technical assistance, and support in the Patriot Legacy Field Surveillance Program (FSP); the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) FSP; and the Patriot Engineering Services Program (ESP). Also included are Patriot and HAWK Missile System spare parts and repair and return management services and component repairs, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (SR-B-ZAT, ZAS, BDN A2, WAK A5, and subsequent cases)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: SR-B-UAJ A1

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: January 17, 2018

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Saudi Arabia—Continuation of Missile System Support Services

    The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible purchase for continued participation, technical assistance, and support in the Patriot Legacy Field Surveillance Program (FSP); the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) FSP; and the Patriot Engineering Services Program (ESP). Also included are Patriot and HAWK Missile System spare parts and repair and return management services and component repairs, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $500 million.

    This proposed sale will support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East. This potential sale is a continuation of current support. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and support into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractors are Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD for the FSP and Raytheon Company, Andover, MA for the ESP. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the permanent assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia. Support teams of 4-10 people will travel to the country on a temporary basis for 1-3 weeks at a time.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-61 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The Patriot Legacy and PAC-3 FSP programs assist international customers to maintain the readiness of their systems. These programs include the shared programs and country unique costs such as the Stockpile Reliability Test (SRT) and Missile Recertification programs. Services include the storage and aging program, surveillance firing program, the Patriot PAC-3 Missile Support Center (P3MSC), program support and a parts library.

    2. As a participating international partner in the Patriot Engineering Services Program (ESP), Saudi Arabia is granted access to information such as engineering changes in development and under consideration, schedules for important events such as procurement and fielding of Patriot system improvements, development of Post Deployment Build (PDB) software, and a comprehensive program to address the issue of loss of sources of supply and advanced technology and their impact on availability of components. The program provides funding for the publication effort to incorporate country specific changes to Technical Manuals (TM). Preparation of all necessary Country specific TM change pages based on the latest version of the USG Department of Army Technical Manuals (DATMs) that support PDB requirements and the existing Repair Parts and Special Tools Lists (RPSTLs). Tasks include technical writing, illustrating, editing and quality review of all changes in accordance with Technical Information Operating Procedures (TIOPS). Organizational Maintenance, Intermediate maintenance and repair parts are covered. Preparation of change pages documenting any upgrades to the existing manuals. These manuals shall include and document any configuration changes as identified resulting in a new manual. Examples of country specific tasks include country unique communication studies and analysis, specialized training for operations and maintenance personnel for new versions (builds) of system software, power generation trade studies, country unique publications, and in country technical and logistical support for system modifications.

    3. Increasing Patriot and Hawk spares support provides Saudi Arabia the capability to sustain and bolster missile system operations through the purchase of spares, consumable repair parts, support equipment, supplies, and maintenance. Included is support for the procurement and transportation of classified parts that are part of Saudi Arabia's current Patriot and Hawk Missile System configurations, with a highest classification of CONFIDENTIAL.

    4. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software source code in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    5. A determination has been made that Saudi Arabia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01426 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; Cancellation AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice; cancellation.

    SUMMARY:

    On Thursday, January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2625-2626), the Department of Defense (DoD) published a notice announcing a meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors that was to take place on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 and Wednesday, January 24, 2018. Due to a lapse in appropriations for the Department of Defense, the DoD is cancelling the January 23, 2018 and January 24, 2018 meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Susan Studds, (301) 243-2121 (Voice), (301) 277-7067 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is President, DIA National Intelligence University, 7400 Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7400. website: http://ni-u.edu/wp/about-niu/leadership-2/board-of-visitors/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to the lapse in appropriations for the DoD, the Designated Federal Officer for the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors along with the DoD was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the cancellation of its previously announced meeting on January 23, 2018 and January 24, 2018 of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors that published on Thursday, January 18 2018. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01507 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-80] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Arms sales notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107, [email protected] or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217, [email protected]; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-80 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN26JA18.016 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-80 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Belgium

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $4.53 billion Other $2.00 billion Total $6.53 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) Aircraft Thirty-eight (38) Pratt & Whitney F-135 Engines (34 installed, 4 spares)

    Non-MDE:

    Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; Reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; support equipment; tools and test equipment; communications equipment; spares and repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (BE-D-SAD)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: January 18, 2018

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Belgium—F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

    The Government of Belgium has requested to buy thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, and thirty-eight (38) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (34 installed, 4 spares). Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; Reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; support equipment; tools and test equipment; communications equipment; spares and repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $6.53 billion.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of an ally and partner nation which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political and economic stability in Western Europe.

    This proposed sale of F-35s will provide Belgium with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The proposed sale will augment Belgium's operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. Belgium will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, TX; and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, CT. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required. All offsets are defined in negotiations between the Purchaser and the contractor.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Belgium involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over the life of the program. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Belgium to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 17-80 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The F-35 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Block 3 aircraft is classified SECRET, except as noted below. It contains current technology representing the F-35 low observable airframe/outer mold line, Pratt & Whitney engine, radar, integrated core processor central computer, mission systems/electronic warfare suite, a multiple sensor suite, operational flight and maintenance trainers, technical data/documentation, and associated software. As the aircraft and its subsystems are under development, many specific identifying equipment/system nomenclatures have not been assigned to date. Sensitive and classified elements of the F-35 CTOL Block 3 aircraft include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software for the following major subsystems:

    a. The Propulsion system is classified SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. The single 40,000-lb thrust class engine is designed for low observability and has been integrated into the aircraft system. Pratt & Whitney, with the F-135, is developing and producing engine turbo machinery compatible with the F-35 and assures highly reliable, affordable performance. The engine is designed to be utilized in all F-35 variants, providing unmatched commonality and supportability throughout the worldwide base of F-35 users. The CTOL propulsion configuration consists of a main engine, diverterless supersonic inlet, and a Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN).

    b. The AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) provides mission systems with air-to-air and air-to-ground tracks which the mission system uses as a component to sensor fusion. The AESA allows the radar to direct RF energy in a way that does not expose the F-35, allowing it to maintain low observability in high-threat environments. The radar subsystem supports integrated system performance for air- to-air missions by providing search, track, identification, and AIM-120 missile data link functionality. The radar also provides synthetic aperture radar mapping for locating surface targets and weather mapping for weather avoidance. The radar functions are tightly integrated, interleaved, and managed by an interface to sensor management functions within mission software. The hardware and software are classified SECRET.

    c. The Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. The EOTS subsystem to the sensor suite provides long-range detection and tracking, Infrared Search and Track (IRST) capability, a Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor for precision tracking, and Bomb Damage Indication (BDI) capability. EOTS replaces multiple separate internal or podded systems typically found on legacy aircraft. The functionality of the EOTS employs the following modes: Targeting FLIR; Laser Range-Finding and Target Designation; E.O. DAS and EOTS Performance.

    d. The Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) is a subsystem to the sensor suite and provides full spherical coverage for air-to-air and air-to-ground detection and Navigation Forward Looking Infrared (NFLIR) imaging. The system contains both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. The NFLIR capability provides infrared (IR) imagery directly to the pilot's Helmet-Mounted Display (HMD) for navigation in total darkness, including takeoff and landing, and provides a passive IR input to the F-35's sensor fusion algorithms. The all-aspect missile warning function provides time-critical warnings of incoming missiles and cues other subsystems to provide effective countermeasure employment. EODAS also provides an IRST function that can create and maintain Situational Awareness-quality tracks (SAIRST). EODAS is a mid-wave Infrared (IR) system consisting of six identical sensors distributed around the F-35 aircraft. Each sensor has a corresponding airframe window panel integrated with the aircraft structure to meet aerodynamic and stealth requirements.

    e. The Electronic Warfare (EW) system contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. Sensitive elements include: apertures; radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) countermeasures; and Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) techniques and features. The reprogrammable, integrated system provides radar warning and electronic support measures (ESM) along with a fully integrated countermeasures (CM) system. The EW system is the primary subsystem used to enhance situational awareness, targeting support and self defense through the search, intercept, location and identification of in-band emitters and to automatically counter IR and RF threats. The IR and RF countermeasures are classified SECRET. This system uses low signature- embedded apertures, located in the aircraft control surface edges, to provide direction finding and identification of surface and airborne emitters and the geo-location of surface emitters. The system is classified SECRET.

    f. The Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence/Communications, Navigation, and Identification (C4I/CNI) system provides the pilot with unmatched connectivity to flight members, coalition forces, and the battlefield. It is an integrated subsystem designed to provide a broad spectrum of secure, anti-jam, covert voice and data communications, precision radio navigation and landing capability, self-identification, beyond visual range target identification, and connectivity with off-board sources of information. The functionality is tightly integrated within the mission system for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in the areas of communications, navigation, identification, and sensor fusion. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. The CNI function includes both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements. Sensitive elements of the CNI subsystems include:

    (1) The VHF/UHF Voice and Data (Plain and Secure) Communication functionality includes air-to-air UHF/VHF voice and data, both clear and secure, to provide communications with other friendly and coalition aircraft, air-to-ground UHF voice to provide communications with ground sites, and intercommunication voice and tone alerts to provide communications between the avionics system and the pilot. UHF/VHF downlink of air vehicle status and maintenance information is provided to notify the ground crews of the amounts and types of stores, fuel, and other supplies or equipment needed to quickly turn the aircraft for the next mission. The system contains both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (2) The Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) functionality provides operational modes to identify ground station and to provide bearing-to-station, slant range-to-ground station, bearing-to-airborne station and slant range to the nearest airborne station or aircraft. TACAN is not unique to the F-35 aircraft but is standard on most U.S. Air Force aircraft. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (3) The Identification Friend or Foe Interrogator and Transponder Identification functionality consists of integrated Mark XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder capability to provide identification of other friendly forces. The CNI system supports sensor fusion by supplying data from IFF interrogations and off-board sources through the intra-flight data link. The system contains both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (4) The Global Positioning System Navigation functionality includes the Global Positioning System (GPS) aided inertial navigation to provide high-quality positional navigation, and the Instrument Landing System (ILS)/Tactical Air Control and Navigation (TACAN) to provide navigation and landing cues within controlled airspace. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (5) The Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) is used specifically for communications between F-35 aircraft and has a very low probability of intercept, contributing to covert operations. The system contains both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (6) The Inertial Navigation System is an all-attitude, Ring Laser Gyro-based navigation system providing outputs of linear and angular acceleration, velocity, body angular rates, position, altitude (roll, pitch, and platform azimuth), magnetic and true heading, altitude, and time tags. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (7) The Radar Altimeter functionality is a module provided in the CNI system rack 3A and uses separate transmit and receive antennae. It measures and reports altitude, and altitude rate of change. Control data is transferred over to a configurable avionics interface card which translates the information to the F-35 aircraft computers. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (8) The Instrument Landing System (ILS) measures, and reports azimuth course and alignment, elevation course alignment, and distance to the runway. Data from the ILS is used to drive visual flight instrumentation. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    (9) The Tactical Data Link is a secure broadcast Tactical Digital Information Link (TADIL) used for real-time voice/data exchange for command and control, relative navigation, and Precise Position Location Identification (PPLI), providing Link-16 type capabilities. The system contains both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET.

    g. The F-35 Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) includes both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements. It provides a fully integrated logistics management solution. ALGS integrates a number of functional areas, including supply chain management, repair, support equipment, engine support, and training. The ALGS infrastructure employs a state-of-the-art information system that provides real-time, decision-worthy information for sustainment decisions by flight line personnel. Prognostic health monitoring technology is integrated with the air system and is crucial to the predictive maintenance of vital components.

    h. The F-35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) includes both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements. The ALIS provides an intelligent information infrastructure that binds all of the key concepts of ALGS into an effective support system. ALIS establishes the appropriate interfaces among the F-35 Air Vehicle, the warfighter, the training system, government information technology (IT) systems, JSF operations, and supporting commercial enterprise systems. Additionally, ALIS provides a comprehensive tool for data collection and analysis, decision support, and action tracking.

    i. The F-35 Training System includes both SECRET and UNCLASSIFIED elements. The Training System includes several types of training devices, to provide for integrated training of both pilots and maintainers. The pilot training device includes a Full Mission Simulator (FMS). The maintainer training devices include an Aircraft Systems Maintenance Trainer (ASMT), Ejection System Maintenance Trainer (ESMT), and Weapons Loading Trainer (WLT). The F-35 Training System can be integrated, where both pilots and maintainers learn in the same Integrated Training Center (ITC). Alternatively, the pilots and maintainers can train in separate facilities (Pilot Training Center and Maintenance Training Center).

    j. Weapons employment capability is SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. Sensitive elements include co-operative targeting.

    k. Other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities:

    (1) The Low Observable Air Frame is SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is classified SECRET. Software (object code) is SECRET. Sensitive elements include: the Radar Cross Section and its corresponding plots, construction materials and fabrication.

    (2) The Integrated Core Processor (ICP) Central Computer is SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is SECRET. Software (object code) is classified SECRET. Sensitive elements include: F-35 Integrated Core Processor utilizing Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Hardware and Module Design to maximize growth and allow for efficient management of DMS and Technology Insertion, if additional processing is needed, a second ICP will be installed in the space reserved for that purpose, more than doubling the current throughput and memory capacity.

    (3) The F-35 Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is SECRET. Software (object code) is SECRET. Sensitive elements include: HMDS consists of the Display Management Computer-Helmet, a helmet shell/display module, a quick disconnect integrated as part of the ejection seat, helmet trackers and tracker processing, day- and night-vision camera functions, and dedicated system/graphics processing. The HMDS provides a fully sunlight readable, bi-ocular display presentation of aircraft information projected onto the pilot's helmet visor. The use of a night vision camera integrated into the helmet eliminates the need for separate Night Vision Goggles (NVG). The camera video is integrated with EO and IR imaging inputs and displayed on the pilot's visor to provide a comprehensive night operational capability.

    (4) The Pilot Life Support System is SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is SECRET. Software (object code) is SECRET. Sensitive elements include: a measure of Pilot Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protection through use of an On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); and an escape system that provide additional protection to the pilot. OBOGS takes the Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) air and enriches it by removing gases (mainly nitrogen) by adsorption, thereby increasing the concentration of oxygen in the product gas and supplying breathable air to the pilot.

    (5) The Off-Board Mission Support System is SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. Information on performance and inherent vulnerabilities is SECRET. Software (object code) is SECRET. Sensitive elements include: mission planning, mission briefing, maintenance/intelligence/tactical debriefing, sensor/algorithm planning, EW system reprogramming, data debrief, etc.

    1. Publications: Manuals are considered SECRET as they contain information on aircraft/system performance and inherent vulnerabilities.

    2. The JSF Reprogramming Center is classified SECRET and contains technology representing the latest state-of-the-art in several areas. This hardware/software facility is located in the U.S. and provides F-35 customers a means to update JSF electronic warfare databases. Sensitive elements include: EW software databases and tools to modify these databases.

    3. (U) If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of specific hardware, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. (U) A determination has been made that Belgium can provide substantially the same degree of protection for sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sustainment program is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the policy justification.

    5. (U) All defense articles and services listed on this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Belgium.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01432 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council will take place. This meeting is not a Town Hall meeting but is open to the public for the purpose of observing Council proceedings, guest speaker presentations, and Council deliberations.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, March 6, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    1155 Defense Pentagon PLC2 Pentagon Library and Conference Center, Room B6, Washington, DC 20301.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Randy Eltringham, (571) 372-5315 (Voice), (571) 372-0884 (Facsimile), OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council, [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community & Family Policy), Office of Family Readiness Policy, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Room 3G15. Website: http://www.militaryonesource.mil/those-who-support-mfrc. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: This is the second meeting of the Council for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY2018). During this meeting, Council members will receive status updates on three FY2017 Recommendations for Immediate Action. They will also review and deliberate about two FY2018 focus areas: (1) Child and Youth Well-being; and (2) Spouse Licensure.

    Agenda: Opening Remarks, Administrative Announcements, Review of Written Public Submissions, Status Updates on FY2017 Recommendations for Immediate Action: Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children; Integration and Coordination of Medical, Education and Family Support Services for Special Needs Families; and Blended Retirement System and Financial Literacy. FY2018 Focus Areas: Child and Youth Well-being; and Spouse Licensure. Closing Remarks. Note: Exact order may vary.

    Meeting Accessibility: This meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space. Members of the public who are entering the Pentagon should arrive at the Pentagon Visitors Center waiting area (Pentagon Metro Entrance) no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to allow time to pass through security check points and be escorted to the meeting location. Members of the public are asked to email their RSVP to the Council at [email protected] no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 2018 to confirm seating availability and to request an escort or handicapped accessible transportation from the Pentagon Visitors Center to the meeting location.

    Written Statements: Persons interested in providing a written statement for review and consideration by Council members attending the March 6, 2018 meeting must do so no later than close of business Monday, February 12, 2018, through the Council mailbox at [email protected] Any written statements received after this date will be provided to Council members in preparation for the final Council meeting of FY2018. The DFO will review all timely submissions and ensure submitted written statements are provided to Council members two weeks prior to the meeting that is subject to this notice. Written statements must not be longer than two type-written pages and should address the following details: Issue or concern, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Those who make submissions are requested to avoid including personal identifiable information (PII) such as names of adults and children, phone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, and other contact information within the body of the written statement. Links or brief summaries of supplemental s