Federal Register Vol. 83, No.20,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 20 (January 30, 2018)

Page Range4131-4412
FR Document

83_FR_20
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 4296 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 4235 - Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian AffairsPDF
83 FR 4324 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 4144 - Group Registration of NewspapersPDF
83 FR 4226 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 4144 - Sale and Disposal of National Forest System TimberPDF
83 FR 4394 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration System (sUAS)PDF
83 FR 4288 - Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3PDF
83 FR 4184 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 4396 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft RegistrationPDF
83 FR 4194 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
83 FR 4201 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
83 FR 4200 - Adelphia Gateway, LLC; Notice of ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 4199 - Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, and Terms and ConditionsPDF
83 FR 4194 - Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 4196 - Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 4192 - Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
83 FR 4195 - Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
83 FR 4193 - Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
83 FR 4198 - Stateline Crude, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
83 FR 4190 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4147 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcement of the Extension of Temporary Moratoria on Enrollment of Part B Non-Emergency Ground Ambulance Suppliers and Home Health Agencies in Designated Geographic LocationsPDF
83 FR 4393 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
83 FR 4227 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0120PDF
83 FR 4228 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0121PDF
83 FR 4234 - New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 4233 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency DeclarationPDF
83 FR 4235 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency DeclarationPDF
83 FR 4230 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 4233 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 4175 - Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing PlanPDF
83 FR 4188 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR)PDF
83 FR 4232 - Maine; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 4232 - New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 4232 - California; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 4231 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 4234 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training ProgramPDF
83 FR 4241 - Notice of Temporary Closure of Public Lands in Maricopa County, AZPDF
83 FR 4191 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup ProjectPDF
83 FR 4397 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
83 FR 4206 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 4185 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory Committee for To Discuss Proposed Panelists for a Hearing on Access To Voting in the State of AlabamaPDF
83 FR 4204 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 4284 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments requestedPDF
83 FR 4270 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate ProcedurePDF
83 FR 4270 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil ProcedurePDF
83 FR 4394 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
83 FR 4184 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the South Dakota Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4406 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of MAB-CHMINACA Into Schedule IPDF
83 FR 4411 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of MAB-CHMINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances ActPDF
83 FR 4171 - Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, ILPDF
83 FR 4398 - Meeting Notice-U.S. Maritime Transportation System National Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4207 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 4169 - Special Local Regulation; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FLPDF
83 FR 4270 - United States v. Parker-Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
83 FR 4187 - Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 4186 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 4131 - Importation of Orchids in Growing Media From TaiwanPDF
83 FR 4182 - Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho; Lower Valley Energy Crow Creek Pipeline ProjectPDF
83 FR 4186 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 272-Lehigh, Pennsylvania; Authorization of Production Activity; Fuling Plastic USA, Inc.; (Disposable Plastic and Paper Service Ware and Kitchenware Products); Allentown, PennsylvaniaPDF
83 FR 4401 - Open Meeting of the Financial Research Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4229 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0020PDF
83 FR 4243 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CTPDF
83 FR 4260 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: The Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WA; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 4247 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DCPDF
83 FR 4266 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Andover, MA; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 4250 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TXPDF
83 FR 4244 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: History Colorado, Formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, COPDF
83 FR 4256 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TXPDF
83 FR 4247 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WAPDF
83 FR 4257 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MAPDF
83 FR 4261 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Andover, MAPDF
83 FR 4255 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 4260 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
83 FR 4251 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
83 FR 4249 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
83 FR 4264 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
83 FR 4259 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, MIPDF
83 FR 4265 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, MIPDF
83 FR 4262 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art, Tulsa, OKPDF
83 FR 4242 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
83 FR 4263 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CTPDF
83 FR 4143 - Passports: Service PassportsPDF
83 FR 4191 - Notice of Orders Issued Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act During December 2017PDF
83 FR 4209 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Title:PDF
83 FR 4167 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 4143 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, ORPDF
83 FR 4206 - Notice of Funding Availability: Council-Selected Restoration Component 2017 Funded Priorities List for Comprehensive Plan Commitment and Planning SupportPDF
83 FR 4402 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Report of General Information, Report of First Notice of Death, Report of Nursing Home or Assisted Living Information, Report of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Report of Non-Receipt of Payment, Report of Incarceration, Report of Month of DeathPDF
83 FR 4193 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 4198 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 4201 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 4195 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 4197 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
83 FR 4197 - Gray Hawk Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 4269 - Pure Granular Magnesium From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
83 FR 4377 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Extension of the Review Period of an Advance Notice To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 4358 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Extension of the Review Period of an Advance Notice To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 4297 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Extension of the Review Period of an Advance Notice To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 4327 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Extension of the Review Period of an Advance Notice To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-down Plan and Related RulesPDF
83 FR 4341 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Extension of the Review Period of an Advance Notice To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-Down Plan and Related RulesPDF
83 FR 4310 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Extension of the Review Period of an Advance Notice To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-Down Plan and Related RulesPDF
83 FR 4399 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Jaguar Land Rover North America LLCPDF
83 FR 4189 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 4269 - Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing from China and IndiaPDF
83 FR 4268 - Certain Microperforated Packaging Containing Fresh Produce; Notice of Correction Concerning Notice of Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 4208 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4153 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Listing the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
83 FR 4138 - Amendments to Forms and Schedules To Remove Voluntary Provision of Social Security NumbersPDF
83 FR 4151 - Civil Penalties Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
83 FR 4375 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the New Securities Industry Essentials ExaminationPDF
83 FR 4354 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate and Amend Rule 1080(l)PDF
83 FR 4324 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Fee PolicyPDF
83 FR 4395 - Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Cable Union Airport, Cable, WisconsinPDF
83 FR 4402 - Notice of Open Public HearingPDF
83 FR 4165 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2018 and Projected 2019 Scup Specifications and Announcement of Final 2018 Summer Flounder and Black Sea Bass Specifications; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 4227 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 4227 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 4226 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 4267 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; 30 CFR 550, Subpart C, Pollution Prevention and ControlPDF
83 FR 4182 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4394 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Foreign Service Officer Test Registration FormPDF
83 FR 4401 - Pricing for the 2018 Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin ProgramPDF
83 FR 4216 - Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 4400 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 3491PDF
83 FR 4224 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVEPDF
83 FR 4218 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VIEKIRA PAKPDF
83 FR 4203 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 4202 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 4153 - Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 4221 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; CRESEMBA-New Drug Aapplication 207500PDF
83 FR 4211 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; Cardiomems HF Monitoring SystemPDF
83 FR 4210 - Evaluating Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Clinical Trials; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 4213 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZEPATIERPDF
83 FR 4223 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; LONSURFPDF
83 FR 4214 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GALLIPRANTPDF
83 FR 4141 - Medical Devices; General and Plastic Surgery Devices; Classification of the Surgical Smoke PrecipitatorPDF
83 FR 4139 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Temporary Catheter for Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Intracardiac ProceduresPDF
83 FR 4219 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; UPTRAVIPDF
83 FR 4285 - Florida Power & Light Company; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3PDF
83 FR 4136 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 4241 - Public Meetings of the Invasive Species Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4289 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF

Issue

83 20 Tuesday, January 30, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4182 2018-01667
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Imports: Importation of Orchids in Growing Media from Taiwan, 4131-4136 2018-01737 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. Parker-Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc., 4270-4284 2018-01741 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4207-4208 2018-01743 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcement of the Extension of Temporary Moratoria on Enrollment of Part B Non-Emergency Ground Ambulance Suppliers and Home Health Agencies in Designated Geographic Locations, 4147-4151 2018-01783 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4208-4210 2018-01683 2018-01705 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Alabama Advisory Committee, 4185 2018-01755 Indiana Advisory Committee, 4184-4185 2018-01798 South Dakota Advisory Committee, 4184 2018-01748 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Willamette River, Portland, OR, 4143-4144 2018-01703 PROPOSED RULES Regulated Navigation Areas: Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 4171-4175 2018-01745 Special Local Regulations: Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL, 4169-4171 2018-01742 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4227-4230 2018-01730 2018-01778 2018-01779 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4189-4190 2018-01686 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Group Registration of Newspapers, 4144-4147 2018-01838 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4190 2018-01784 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4190-4191 2018-01762
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of MAB-CHMINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 4411-4412 2018-01746 PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of MAB-CHMINACA into Schedule I, 4406-4410 2018-01747 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Importation and Exportation of Natural Gas or Liqeified Natural Gas: Ranibow Energy Marketing Corp.; Valley Crossing Pipeline, LLC; Coahuila Energy; et al., 4191-4192 2018-01707 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup Project, 4191 2018-01763
Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 4136-4138 2018-01573 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines, 4167-4169 2018-01704 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Aircraft Registration, 4396-4397 2018-01797 Small Unmanned Aircraft Registration System, 4394-4395 2018-01800 Intent of Waiver with Respect to Land: Cable Union Airport, Cable, WI, 4395-4396 2018-01675 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4284-4285 2018-01752 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board; Correction, 4153 2018-01648 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4202-4206 2018-01649 2018-01650 2018-01753 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, 4234-4235 2018-01765 Emergency Declarations: Louisiana; Amendment No. 3, 4233-4235 2018-01775 2018-01776 Flood Hazard Determinations, 4231 2018-01766 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Maine, 4232-4233 2018-01769 New Hampshire, 4232 2018-01768 Major Disaster Declarations: California; Amendment No. 2, 4232 2018-01767 Louisiana; Amendment No. 1, 4230-4231 2018-01774 Louisiana; Amendment No. 8, 4233 2018-01773 New York; Amendment No. 1, 4234 2018-01777 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Adelphia Gateway, LLC, 4200-4201 2018-01792 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 4199-4200 2018-01791 Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 4196-4197 2018-01789 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 4201 2018-01793 Northern States Power Co., 4192-4193 2018-01788 Combined Filings, 4193-4196, 4198, 4201-4202 2018-01697 2018-01698 2018-01699 2018-01700 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 4195 2018-01787 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Gray Hawk Solar, LLC, 4197 2018-01695 License Transfer Applications: HSE Hydro NH Amoskeag, LLC; HSE Hydro NH Hooksett, LLC; HSE Hydro NH Garvin Falls, LLC; HSE Hydro NH Ayers Island, LLC; et al., 4193 2018-01786 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Stateline Crude, LLC, 4198-4199 2018-01785 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications: Public Notice, 4197-4198 2018-01696 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, 4194-4195 2018-01790 Staff Attendances, 4194 2018-01794 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 4397-4398 2018-01760 2018-01761 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 4206 2018-01756 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Temporary Catheter for Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Intracardiac Procedures, 4139-4141 2018-01638 General and Plastic Surgery Devices; Classification of the Surgical Smoke Precipitator, 4141-4143 2018-01639 NOTICES Determinations of Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM, 4211-4213 2018-01644 CRESEMBA, 4221-4222 2018-01645 GALLIPRANT, 4214-4216 2018-01640 LONSURF, 4223-4224 2018-01641 SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE, 4224-4226 2018-01655 UPTRAVI, 4219-4221 2018-01637 VIEKIRA PAK, 4218-4219 2018-01651 ZEPATIER, 4213-4214 2018-01642 Guidance: Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers, 4216-4218 2018-01662 Meetings: Evaluating Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Clinical Trials, 4210-4211 2018-01643 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Fuling Plastic USA, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 272, Lehigh, PA, 4186 2018-01735 Forest Forest Service RULES Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber; CFR Correction, 4144 2018-01806 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Lower Valley Energy Crow Creek Pipeline Project, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho, 4182-4184 2018-01736 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Funding Availability: Council-Selected Restoration Component 2017 Funded Priorities List for Comprehensive Plan Commitment and Planning Support, 4206-4207 2018-01702 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

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 4235-4241 2018-01907 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

RULES Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 4151-4152 2018-01680 NOTICES Meetings: Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 4241 2018-01538
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4400-4401 2018-01659 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China, 4186 2018-01738 Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, 4187-4188 2018-01740 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing from China and India, 4269-4270 2018-01685 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Correction, 4268-4269 2018-01684 Pure Granular Magnesium from China, 4269 2018-01694 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure, 4270 2018-01751 Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, 4270 2018-01750 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Public Lands; Temporary Closures: Public Lands in Maricopa County, AZ, 4241-4242 2018-01764 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Meetings: Transportation System National Advisory Committee, 4398 2018-01744 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Exemption Petitions: Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, 4399-4400 2018-01687 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 4226 2018-01822 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 4227 2018-01671 National Institute on Aging, 4226-4227 2018-01669 2018-01670 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened, 4153-4164 2018-01682 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2018 and Projected 2019 Scup Specifications, etc.; Correction, 4165-4166 2018-01672 PROPOSED RULES Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan, 4175-4181 2018-01772 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Research Performance Progress Report, 4188-4189 2018-01770 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: The Museum of Anthropology at Washington State University, Pullman, WA; Correction, 4260 2018-01728 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, 4247 2018-01727 Inventory Completions: Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TX, 4256-4257 2018-01723 Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, 4249-4255, 4260-4261, 4264-4265 2018-01715 2018-01716 2018-01717 2018-01718 Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; Correction, 4255-4256 2018-01719 Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, MI, 4265-4266 2018-01713 Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 4242-4243 2018-01711 Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 4243-4244, 4263-4264 2018-01710 2018-01729 Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Andover, MA, 4261-4262 2018-01720 Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Andover, MA; Correction, 4266-4267 2018-01726 Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA, 4257-4259 2018-01721 Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, 4247-4248 2018-01722 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TX, 4250-4251 2018-01725 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, MI, 4259-4260 2018-01714 History Colorado, formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO, 4244-4247 2018-01724 Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art, Tulsa, OK, 4262-4263 2018-01712 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Arizona Public Service Co., Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 4288-4289 2018-01799 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Biweekly Notice, 4289-4296 2018-01469 License Amendment Applications: Florida Power and Light Co.; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, 4285-4288 2018-01636 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pollution Prevention and Control, 4267-4268 2018-01668 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 4296-4297 2018-01936 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Amendments to Forms and Schedules to Remove Voluntary Provision of Social Security Numbers, 4138-4139 2018-01681 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 4324 2018-01902 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 4375-4377 2018-01678 Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, 4341-4354, 4358-4375 2018-01689 2018-01692 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 4354-4358 2018-01677 National Securities Clearing Corporation, 4327-4340, 4377-4393 2018-01690 2018-01693 The Depository Trust Company, 4297-4324 2018-01688 2018-01691 The Options Clearing Corp., 4324-4327 2018-01676 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Surrender of Licenses of Small Business Investment Companies: Contemporary Healthcare Fund I, LP, 4393 2018-01759 Escalate Capital Partners SBIC I, L.P., 4394 2018-01749 Fifth Street Mezzanine Partners IV, L.P., 4393 2018-01757 Fifth Street Mezzanine Partners V, L.P., 4393-4394 2018-01782 Gladstone Financial Corp., 4393 2018-01754 Granite Creek FlexCap I, L.P., 4393 2018-01758 State Department State Department RULES Passports: Service Passports, 4143 2018-01708 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Foreign Service Officer Test Registration Form, 4394 2018-01666 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

NOTICES Meetings: Financial Research Advisory Committee, 4401 2018-01734
U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Hearings, 4402 2018-01674 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Pricing for the 2018 Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Program, 4401-4402 2018-01665 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Report of General Information, Report of First Notice of Death, Report of Nursing Home or Assisted Living Information, Report of Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Report of Non-Receipt of Payment, Report of Incarceration, Report of Month of Death, 4402-4403 2018-01701 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, 4406-4412 2018-01746 2018-01747 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 20 Tuesday, January 30, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0005] RIN 0579-AE28 Importation of Orchids in Growing Media From Taiwan AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the regulations governing the importation of plants for planting to add orchid plants of the genus Dendrobium from Taiwan to the list of plants that may be imported into the United States in an approved growing medium, subject to specified growing, inspection, and certification requirements. We are taking this action in response to a request from the Taiwanese Government and after determining that the plants could be imported, under certain conditions, without resulting in the introduction into, or the dissemination within, the United States of a quarantine plant pest or noxious weed.

DATES:

Effective March 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Lydia E. Colón, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2302.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation into the United States of certain plants and plant products to prevent the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds. The regulations in “Subpart—Plants for Planting,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations) contain, among other things, prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.

Paragraph (a) of § 319.37-8 of the regulations requires, with certain exceptions, that plants offered for importation into the United States be free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media. This requirement is intended to help prevent the introduction of plant pests that might be present in the growing media; the exceptions to the requirement take into account factors that mitigate plant pest risks. Those exceptions, which are found in paragraphs (b) through (e) of § 319.37-8, consider either the origin of the plants and growing media (paragraph (b)), the nature of the growing media (paragraphs (c) and (d)), or the use of a combination of growing conditions, approved media, inspections, and other requirements (paragraph (e)).

Paragraph (e) of § 319.37-8 provides conditions under which certain plants established in growing media may be imported into the United States. In addition to specifying the types of plants that may be imported, § 319.37-8(e) also:

• Specifies the types of growing media that may be used;

• Requires plants to be grown in accordance with written agreements between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the country where the plants are grown and between the foreign NPPO and the grower;

• Requires the plants to be rooted and grown for a specified period in a greenhouse that meets certain requirements for pest exclusion and that is used only for plants being grown in compliance with § 319.37-8(e);

• Requires that the parent plants of the exported plants in growing media are produced from seed germinated in the production greenhouse or from mother plants that are grown and monitored for a specified period prior to export of the descendant plants;

• Specifies the sources of water that may be used on the plants, the height of the benches on which the plants must be grown, and the conditions under which the plants must be stored and packaged; and

• Requires that the plants be inspected in the greenhouse and found free of evidence of plant pests no more than 30 days prior to the exportation of the plants.

A phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the country in which the plants were grown that declares that the above conditions have been met must accompany the plants at the time of importation. These conditions have been used to successfully mitigate the risk of pest introduction associated with the importation into the United States of approved plants established in growing media.

In response to a request from the NPPO of Taiwan, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) in order to identify the quarantine plant pests that could follow the importation of orchid plants of the genus Dendrobium in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States. (Under § 319.37-1 of the regulations, a quarantine plant pest is a plant pest that is of potential economic importance to the United States and not yet present in the United States, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.)

Based on the findings of the PRA, we prepared a risk management document (RMD) to determine whether phytosanitary measures exist that would address this quarantine plant pest risk. The RMD suggested that the risk would be addressed if the plants met the general conditions of § 319.37-8(e).

As a result, on October 27, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 74720-74722, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0005) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by adding Dendrobium spp. from Taiwan to the list of plants established in an approved growing medium that may be imported into the United States. The plants will have to be produced, handled, and imported in accordance with the requirements of § 319.37-8(e) and be accompanied at the time of importation by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Taiwan that declares that those requirements have been met.

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0005.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending December 27, 2016. We received 11 comments by that date. They were from a scientific group, industry organizations, a State department of agriculture, and private citizens. They are discussed below by topic.

General Comments

One commenter was supportive of the proposed action but requested that we also allow for the importation of carnivorous plants from Taiwan as they are grown in the same medium.

The request submitted by the NPPO of Taiwan concerned the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids only. Were Taiwan to submit a request to import carnivorous plants in approved growing media we would consider and analyze that request as we would any other.

Another commenter, from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry (FDACS' DPI), stated that U.S. stakeholders from those areas potentially affected by any pest or disease outbreak from imported commodities should be invited to participate in site visits prior to the proposal of any rulemakings such as the one finalized by this document.

APHIS is committed to a transparent process and an inclusive role for stakeholders in our risk analysis process. To that end, we are currently considering ways to facilitate further stakeholder involvement, including site visits, during the initial stages of the development of PRAs. However, since this comment relates to the structure of APHIS' overall risk analysis process, and not to the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan, it is outside the scope of the current rulemaking.

A commenter requested that we take into consideration the increased workload of border inspectors and the potential impact of additional imports on inspection times and treatment facilities.

APHIS has reviewed its resources and consulted with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and believes there is adequate coverage across the United States to ensure compliance with APHIS regulations, including the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media, as established by this rule.

One commenter wanted to know how the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media would benefit domestic orchid growers and consumers. The commenter speculated that the imported Dendrobium spp. orchids would be of lower quality compared to the domestic flowers. The commenter wanted to know whether APHIS was planning to implement any programs to assist domestic orchid growers in the face of foreign competition.

It is beyond APHIS' statutory authority to prohibit importation of a commodity for any reason other than to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA), APHIS may prohibit the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States only if we determine that the prohibition is necessary in order to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.

Comments on Phytosanitary Risk

A commenter said that APHIS should further study the potential phytosanitary impacts and set out additional requirements prior to allowing for the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan.

The PRA and RMD that accompanied the proposed rule evaluated the quarantine plant pest risk associated with the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States. These documents provided scientific evidence that a prohibition on the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media is not necessary in order to protect plant health in the United States, and the risk associated with such importation could be addressed by requiring the orchids and growing media to be produced in accordance with §  319.37-8(e). We prepared the PRA and RMD in accordance with relevant International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) standards (see International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 11, found at http://www.acfs.go.th/sps/downloads/34163_ISPM_11_E.pdf) and our own guidelines, and we are confident that they adequately evaluated the plant pest risk associated with the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States.

Another commenter expressed concern that the NPPO of Taiwan or its designated representatives would not perform required inspections to a sufficiently high standard and therefore allow pests of concern to enter the United States.

The United States is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a signatory to the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the IPPC. In these capacities, the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of plants for planting will be based on scientific evidence, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence indicating that the prohibitions are necessary to protect plants within the United States. Like the United States, Taiwan is a signatory to the SPS Agreement. As such, it has agreed to respect the phytosanitary measures the United States imposes on the importation of plants and plant products from Taiwan when the United States demonstrates the need to impose these measures in order to protect plant health within the United States. Were pests of concern to be discovered in shipments of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan, we reserve the right to halt importation and address the issue with the NPPO of Taiwan.

Two commenters cited reports of unknown pests discovered in connection with orchids from Taiwan: microscopic mites in the flower pollen and sphagnum moss-eating insects in the growing media. These reports suggested to the commenters that the PRA and RMD prepared by APHIS might not be reliable.

After careful review of our pest interception data, we found that only 48 actionable pests were intercepted in connection with all species of orchids imported from Taiwan over the last 5 years, which is less than 10 interceptions per year. The pests intercepted specifically in connection with shipments of Dendrobium spp. orchids in the past 5 years were: Snails (three interceptions), mealybugs (one interception), thrips (two interceptions), and fungal plant pathogens (five interceptions). All orchid shipments containing actionable pests were fumigated, destroyed, or returned to Taiwan to ensure that no pests were able to enter the United States.

There have been no interceptions of mites on Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan, nor have there been any interceptions of organisms in sphagnum moss. The approved growing media, including sphagnum moss, listed in paragraph (e)(1) of § 319.37-8 must be new and not have been previously used. Prior evaluation by APHIS has revealed that approved growing media not previously used for planting is unlikely to be colonized by quarantine pests. All growing media must be sourced, processed, packaged, handled and stored in a manner to ensure freedom from pests.

Another commenter argued that the potential for the presence of quarantine pests associated with approved growing media or plants is always present. The commenter said that these pests or evidence of their presence may not be visible upon inspection or may be missed during the inspection process.

If the provisions of the proposed rule are adhered to, there will be a negligible risk that Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan that are imported into the United States will harbor quarantine plant pests.

That being said, pursuant to §§  319.37-3 and 319.37-11 of the regulations, lots of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan that consist of 13 or more plants must be imported to a United States Department of Agriculture plant inspection station for entry into the United States—we anticipate that almost all lots of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan that are exported to the United States will consist of more than 13 plants. Personnel at plant inspection stations are trained to detect plant pests and signs and symptoms of plant pests, including those that are difficult to detect, and have access to personnel with scientific expertise in identifying plant pests.

One commenter cited a previous rule (81 FR 5881-5888, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0041) that authorized the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan in approved growing media where we provided interception data related to the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan. The commenter disagreed with our assertion that the average interception rate for pests of concern in connection with shipments of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan (23 consignments determined infested per year) is statistically insignificant.

We disagree and reiterate that an average of 23 infested shipments out of the approximately 20 million Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media exported from Taiwan to the United States each year is a vanishingly small number that serves as proof of the efficacy of the systems approach. There is no evidence that any plant pests have been introduced into the United States through the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan. The commenter provided no evidence to support the claim of statistical significance.

Another commenter referenced a 2012 study released by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) titled “EPPO Study on the Risk of Imports of Plants for Planting.” 2 The commenter highlighted several findings of that study which were determined by EPPO to represent high risk of plant pest introduction:

2 The EPPO study is located at https://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/EPPO_Study_on_Plants_for_planting.pdf.

• Presence of growing medium, which could lead to the transport of many types of pests, including nematodes, fungi, insects, and invasive plants. The commenter cited the orchid snail (Zonitoides arboreus) in the State of Hawaii as an example, where the growth of the commercial potted orchid industry and that industry's use of moist bark and coconut fiber media were connected to a dramatic increase in snail damage and prevalence in the 1990s;

• Size of the plants. The commenter's assumption was that plants in growing medium would be larger than the bare root plants previously allowed importation. Larger plants are older and allow more time for pest infestation to occur and more places on the plant to infest;

• Production mode. Wild-collected plants are highest risk and easily disguised among cultivated plants when potted in identical containers and media;

• Unidentified risk. Those quarantine pests considered by the study were not known to represent a phytosanitary risk prior to their introduction, and their features would not have suggested a risk if assessed individually. The commenter cited the fungus Ceratocystis fimbriata, the causal agent of rapid Ohi'a death, which was previously unknown to science and was not on any list of quarantine pests, but is most similar to a disease shipped in potted plants.

The PRA contained an evaluation of the likelihood that quarantine snails, slugs, and nematodes that occur in Taiwan and are associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids will follow the pathway on Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States. If the snails, slugs, or nematodes were considered to potentially follow the pathway, the PRA evaluated the likelihood of their introduction into the United States through this pathway, and the consequences of this introduction. Bark is not listed in § 319.37-8 as an approved growing medium and, while coconut fiber is among the approved growing media, as stated previously, all growing media must be new and not have been previously used, thus decreasing the risk that it will be infested.

Contrary to the commenter's assumption that plants imported in growing media would be older and therefore larger than the bare root plants already allowed importation, plants in growing media are subject to the same size and age restrictions as bare root plants. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this document, lots of 13 or more Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan would have to be imported to a plant inspection station for entry into the United States where they will be carefully examined by trained inspectors.

Plants in growing media pose no greater risk of commingling with wild-collected plants than other types of plant material; indeed the more numerous inspections required of plants in growing media during the production process likely makes such commingling more difficult. However, if we determine that the standard of production agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Taiwan is not being met (e.g., commingling wild-collected plants with greenhouse grown plants), we reserve the right to halt importations of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan until such time that we are confident that the required systems approach will be followed.

C. fimbriata was originally described in connection with sweet potato in 1890. It has since been found on a wide variety of annual and perennial plants. It is not yet known whether the C. fimbriata causing rapid Ohi'a death in Hawaii represents a new strain imported on an as-yet unknown commodity or an existing strain that mutated in Hawaii. The PRA that accompanied the proposed rule provided a list of all pests of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan. This list was prepared using multiple data sources to ensure its completeness. For this same reason, we are confident it is accurate. If, however, a new pest is detected in connection with Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan (e.g., the causal agent for rapid Ohi'a death is conclusively linked to that commodity), APHIS will conduct further risk analysis in order to evaluate that pest to determine whether it is a quarantine pest, and whether it is likely to follow the importation pathway. If we determine that the pest is a quarantine pest and is likely to follow the pathway, we will work with the NPPO of Taiwan to adjust the pest list and related phytosanitary measures to prevent its introduction into the United States.

Another commenter expressed concern that APHIS would not have sufficient inspectors at the ports of entry into the United States, allowing for pest entry.

APHIS has reviewed its resources and believes it has adequate resources available to ensure compliance with the conditions of the final rule.

One commenter stated that there is no virus testing at U.S. ports of entry and wanted to know if such testing occurs prior to export.

We do not consider virus testing necessary given that the PRA did not identify any quarantine viruses that occur in Taiwan and are associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids. If that situation were to change we would work with the NPPO of Taiwan to develop requirements relating to viral testing for any quarantine viruses.

Comments Regarding the Pest List

As part of the PRA, we prepared a list of plant pests that are associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids and that we determined to occur in Taiwan. We determined that three quarantine pests present in Taiwan could potentially follow the import pathway:

Helionothrips errans (Williams), a thrips;

Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, the chili thrips; and

Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), the Oriental leafworm moth.

FDACS' DPI stated that an accidental introduction of the Oriental leafworm moth would be particularly damaging to the State of Florida because it is a known pest of some of that State's most significant crops. The commenter said that Oriental leafworm moth is intercepted in connection with orchids at ports of entry on a regular basis and has been discovered at least five times in Florida nurseries since 2002; some of these finds were associated with Dendrobium spp.

The required systems approach will remove pests from pathway of importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan. Oriental leafworm moth eggs and larvae (the life stages of the pest associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan) are conspicuous pests that are relatively easy to detect upon visual inspection. Plants in growing media will be produced in pest exclusionary structures subject to required pest management programs. While it is true that Oriental leafworm moth has been intercepted at the ports, these interceptions have not been made in connection with orchids imported from China or Taiwan. Those Oriental leafworm moths associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids discovered in Florida greenhouses were likely associated with plants smuggled into the United States and not grown using the necessary containment methods to prevent infestation.

Another commenter said that because Helionothrips errans and the chili thrips are very small and insert their eggs into plant material, evidence of infestation may go undetected.

In addition to the pest exclusionary structures discussed previously, the post-harvest requirement that the plants be kept dry for 7-10 days prior to packing in approved growing media will allow for the emergence of any thrips previously undetected due to their location inside the plant.

One commenter pointed out that Fusarium (a genus of pathogenic fungi) exists in Taiwan and can be persistent in plant populations there since full control measures require the elimination of all contaminated plants and the implementation of strict disease control measures.

While we are aware that multiple species of Fusarium occur in Taiwan, none of these are known to be associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids. Further, when we have detected Fusarium spp. on susceptible commodities at ports of entry into the United States, the species detected have been ones that are already widely prevalent within the United States and therefore not considered to be quarantine pests.

Comments Regarding Additional Phytosanitary Measures

Two commenters pointed out that APHIS data shows that the systems approach does miss quarantine pests and argued that this was proof that further study and implementation of additional phytosanitary measures are needed before additional importation is allowed.

We have stated in the past that if zero tolerance for pest risk were the standard applied to international trade in agricultural commodities, it is quite likely that no country would ever be able to export a fresh agricultural commodity to any other country and, thus, zero risk is not a realistic standard. We are confident, based on our knowledge and experience, that the required phytosanitary measures laid out in this rule and in the preceding proposed rule will be sufficient to reduce risk.

One commenter stated that because the required screens can be easily removed from greenhouse ventilators and reinstalled prior to the arrival of inspectors, we should implement a required monitoring system so that the screening cannot be removed between inspections.

We reserve the right to conduct monitoring of the development and implementation of the required pest management plans. However, we do not consider it necessary for us to require APHIS to monitor the development and implementation of each pest management plan within any specific place of production. For other export programs for plants and plant products from Taiwan to the United States, we have exercised joint monitoring responsibilities with the NPPO of Taiwan, and we have not encountered any issues that suggest we should modify this practice.

Another commenter said that a large percentage of plants imported into the State of Florida from China and Taiwan test positive for common orchid viruses. The commenter claimed that this is due to the use of large plant pieces for multiplication since, when this is done, any pathogens present on the original plant will also be present on those plants propagated from that plant's parts. The commenter argued that many pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria, and Liberibacters including zebra chip, citrus greening, and Xylella fastidiosa, may be present on plants but remain asymptomatic, thus escaping detection via visual inspection. As a result, the commenter recommended the following additional phytosanitary measures: The growing area should exclude all pests capable of vectoring pathogens and be inspected on a quarterly basis to ensure freedom from such pests; and a percentage of plants should be randomly indexed for pathogens at least biannually.

The PRA did not identify any viruses that can follow the pathway of importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan. In addition, the pathogens specifically referenced by the commenter are not orchid pests: Zebra chip is a pest of potatoes, citrus greening is a pest of citrus, and Xylella fastidiosa is the causal agent for diseases of olives, citrus, grapes, and landscape oleanders. Nonetheless, growers will be required to perform specific sanitary measures under the requirements of the rule and the operational workplan that APHIS enters into with the NPPO of Taiwan. The required greenhouse operating procedures will include measures designed to exclude pests from the greenhouse and implementation of a pest management plan to control disease vectors.

FDACS' DPI recommended that shipment of Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan not be allowed into the State of Florida given that the climate in that State is particularly conducive to the establishment of the pests associated with Dendrobium spp. orchids.

We have determined, for the reasons described in the RMD that accompanied the proposed rule, that the measures specified in the RMD will effectively mitigate the risk associated with the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids from Taiwan. The commenter did not provide any evidence suggesting that the mitigations are not effective. Therefore, we are not taking the action requested by the commenter.

Comments Regarding Economic Impact

One commenter stated that the increase of foreign-produced orchids in the domestic market will force most domestic orchid farmers out of business. A second commenter expressed the belief that this scenario would be driven by lower production costs, due mainly to lower labor rates in Taiwan and a climate more favorable to orchid production absent the need for artificial heating and cooling.

The importation Dendrobium spp. orchids into the United States from Taiwan is already allowed; it is only their importation in approved growing media that is not currently authorized. Taiwan may shift some exports from bare-rooted Dendrobium spp. orchids to rooted plants in approved growing media to meet U.S. consumer demand. We note that, by value, U.S. production of Dendrobium spp. orchids does not represent a large portion of U.S. orchid production (4 percent of production in 2014). While orchid producers in Taiwan may benefit from lower labor costs, the quantity of Dendrobium spp. plants in approved growing media exported to the United States will still depend on the ability of those producers and exporters to cover their production, transportation, and marketing costs in light of U.S. market prices. APHIS expects Taiwan orchid producers to incur higher production and shipping costs as compared to those for bare-rooted plants.

A commenter classified the proposed action as a lessening of regulatory requirements and predicted that it would prove detrimental to the domestic orchid industry by setting a precedent for less stringent regulations.

The Secretary considers many factors in making a determination to allow the import of a previously prohibited article, such as potential environmental effects and the economic effects associated with the introduction of a plant pest or noxious weed. The determination to allow an import under the PPA, however, is ultimately based on the Secretary's determination that the importation of a commodity will not result in the introduction into or dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed. This approach is consistent with APHIS' obligations under the PPA and international trade agreements. Part of APHIS' mission is to facilitate exports, and we strive to do so. Success in this area is somewhat tied to factors out of our control, but we make every effort to assist domestic industry in securing access to export markets.

The same commenter expressed the belief that the Taiwanese orchid industry is given financial assistance by the government of that country that gives those growers an advantage over domestic producers who are not similarly assisted by the U.S. Government.

APHIS has no reason to believe that Dendrobium spp. producers or shippers are subsidized by Taiwan. However, even if they were, as stated elsewhere in this document, APHIS' determinations as to whether a new agricultural commodity can be safely imported are not affected by factors such as economic competitiveness.

Another commenter asked us to consider the future budgetary resources required for pest management programs and facilities given the likely increase the prevalence of quarantine pests overall.

APHIS allocates substantial resources for the identification of invasive pests, including pest identifiers and taxonomic specialists. We also allocate resources to States through the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey to ensure that the risk of invasive pests entering the United States is being sufficiently addressed. As stated previously, the required systems approach will allow Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media to be safely imported into the United States from Taiwan.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

Executive Order 13771

This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Further, APHIS considers this rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771 as the action will enable U.S. nurseries that purchase these orchids to benefit from their improved quality and reduced production time in comparison to bare-rooted plants.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Although the importation from Taiwan of bare-rooted Dendrobium spp. orchids is allowed, entry of this orchid genus in growing media is not authorized. In response to requests from the Taiwan Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, APHIS is amending the regulations to allow the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media into the United States, subject to specified growing, inspection, and certification requirements.

Orchids are the largest single group of potted flowering plants sold in the United States, and comprised about one-third of sales ($266 million of $788 million) for the potted flowering plants industry in 2014 (most recent data available). Sales of U.S.-produced Dendrobium spp. orchids in 2014 totaled $12.3 million. In 2016, the United States imported 5,948 metric tons (MT) of live orchids valued at $75 million, of which Taiwan supplied 79 percent (orchids valued at over $58.9 million).

The rule will enable Taiwanese exporters to bypass U.S. growers altogether and provide higher-valued, mature potted Dendrobium spp. orchids directly to wholesalers and retailers. However, such a scenario is considered unlikely, given the technical challenges and marketing costs incurred when shipping finished plants in pots. More likely, Taiwan will continue to export immature plants to U.S. nurseries to grow and sell as finished plants.

Import levels will depend on the ability of Taiwanese producers and exporters to cover their production, transportation, and marketing costs given U.S. market prices. U.S. nurseries that purchase Dendrobium spp. orchids will benefit from their improved quality and reduced production time in comparison to bare-rooted plants. The rule will increase competition for U.S. producers and importers of immature Dendrobium spp. orchids.

U.S. orchid producers numbered 158 in 2012, but the number of establishments that are small entities is not known. Given that orchid plants such as Oncidium spp. are already being imported from Taiwan in approved growing media and all orchid species are allowed importation without growing material, we expect that allowing the importation of Dendrobium spp. orchids in approved growing media will not significantly change the volume or value of orchids imported by the United States from Taiwan.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation of Dendrobium spp. from Taiwan under the conditions specified in this rule will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website.3 Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 799-7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

3 Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0005. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact will appear in the resulting list of documents.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0458, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. Section 319.37-8 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (e) introductory text, by adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for “Dendrobium spp. from Taiwan”; and b. By revising the OMB citation at the end of the section.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 319.37-8 Growing media.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0190, 0579-0439, 0579-0454, and 0579-0458) Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of January 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01737 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0939; Product Identifier 2017-SW-057-AD; Amendment 39-19174; AD 2018-03-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. 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 Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor blade (MRB) tip cap for disbonding. This AD is prompted by a report of the in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these helicopters.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective February 14, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of February 14, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by April 2, 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-2017-0939; 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, any incorporated-by-reference service information, 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 Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. 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. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0939.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 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. 2017-0175-E, dated September 13, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises of an in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap on an AW139 helicopter where the pilot was able to safely land the helicopter. EASA further advises that an investigation determined the cause as incorrect bonding procedures used during production on MRB part number 3G6210A00131, serial numbers 3615, 3634, 3667, and 3729. According to EASA, this condition could result in loss of an MRB tip cap, increased pilot workload, and reduced control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of the affected MRB tip caps within 5 hours and replacing the affected MRBs within 10 hours if not replaced as a result of the inspection. The EASA AD also prohibits installing the affected MRBs on a helicopter.

The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Leonardo Helicopters on its type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, 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 Under 1 CFR Part 51

Leonardo Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 139-508, dated September 12, 2017, which describes procedures for inspecting the tip cap for disbonding using a tap test and replacing the main rotor blade.

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.

AD Requirements

For helicopters with an MRB part-number (P/N) 3G6210A00131 that has serial number (S/N) 3615, 3634, 3667, or 3729 installed, this AD requires:

• Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), tap inspecting each tip cap for disbonding.

• If there is any disbonding, this AD requires, before further flight, removing the MRB from service.

• If there is no disbonding, this AD requires, within 10 hours TIS, removing the MRB from service.

This AD also prohibits installing these serial-numbered MRBs on any helicopter after the effective date of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD requires that you return the removed blades to Leonardo Helicopters, and this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects four helicopters of U.S. Registry.

At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Tap inspecting the MRB tip caps will require 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85. Replacing one MRB will require 4 work-hours, and $141,725 for required parts. Thus, we estimate a total cost of $568,345 per helicopter and $2,273,380 for the U.S. fleet to comply with this AD.

According to Leonardo Helicopters' service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Leonardo Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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 adoption of this rule because the corrective actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS.

Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons 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): 2018-03-01 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19174; Docket No. FAA-2017-0939; Product Identifier 2017-SW-057-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a main rotor blade (MRB) part number (P/N) 3G6210A00131 with a serial number (S/N) 3615, 3634, 3667, or 3729 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as disbonding of an MRB tip cap. This condition could result in loss of the MRB tip cap, severe vibrations, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective February 14, 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 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), using a tap hammer or equivalent, tap inspect each MRB tip cap for disbonding in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 139-508, dated September 12, 2017 (EASB).

(i) If there is any disbonding, before further flight, remove the MRB from service.

(ii) If there is no disbonding, within 10 hours TIS, remove the MRB from service.

(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a MRB P/N 3G6210A00131 with a S/N 3615, 3634, 3667, or 3729 on any helicopter.

(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: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 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

The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0175-E, dated September 13, 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-2017-0939.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210 Main Rotor Blades.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 139-508, dated September 12, 2017.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Leonardo Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 22, 2018. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01573 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 249 [Release No. 33-7424A; 34-38771A; 35-26733A; 39-2354A; IC-22727A] Amendments to Forms and Schedules To Remove Voluntary Provision of Social Security Numbers AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical correction.

SUMMARY:

This document makes a technical correction to a form amendment that was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1997. The Commission adopted revisions to forms and schedules filed under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, related provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, to eliminate the portion of those forms that requests filers who are natural persons to furnish their Social Security numbers. The 1997 amendment to Form MSD inadvertently omitted the removal of the second of two references to Social Security numbers in the instructions to the form.

DATES:

Effective January 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brice Prince, at (202) 551-5777, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We are making a technical correction to Form MSD 1 under the Exchange Act.2

1 17 CFR 249.1100, Form MSD, application for registration as a municipal securities dealer pursuant to rule 15Ba2-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or amendment to such application.

2 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 249

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of the Amendments

For the reasons set out above, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 249—FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 1. The general authority citation for part 249 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3), Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309 (2012); Sec. 107, Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), and Sec. 72001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend General Instruction M to Form MSD (referenced in § 249.1100), by removing the text “; social security numbers, if furnished, will be used only to assist the Commission in identifying applicants and, therefore, in promptly processing applications” from the end of the third sentence. Note:

The text of Form MSD does not, and the amendments will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Dated: January 24, 2018. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01681 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 870 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6285] Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Temporary Catheter for Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Intracardiac Procedures AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the temporary catheter for embolic protection during transcatheter intracardiac procedures into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the temporary catheter for embolic protection during transcatheter intracardiac procedures' classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.

DATES:

This order is effective January 30, 2018. The classification was applicable on June 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sadaf Toor, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1202, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6381, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Upon request, FDA has classified the temporary catheter for embolic protection during transcatheter intracardiac procedures as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

II. De Novo Classification

On September 20, 2016, Claret Medical, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the Sentinel® Cerebral Protection System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on June 1, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.1251. We have named the generic type of device temporary catheter for embolic protection during transcatheter intracardiac procedures, and it is identified as a single use percutaneous catheter system that has (a) blood filter(s) at the distal end. This device is indicated for use while performing transcatheter intracardiac procedures. The device is used to filter blood in a manner that may prevent embolic material (thrombus/debris) from the transcatheter intracardiac procedure from traveling towards the cerebral circulation.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

Table 1—Temporary Catheter for Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Intracardiac Procedures Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risks Mitigation measures Device failure leading to debris embolization and stroke or death Non-clinical performance testing, Animal testing, and Clinical performance testing. Impeded or disrupted blood flow leading to peripheral ischemia Non-clinical performance testing, Animal testing, Clinical performance testing, and Labeling. Device incompatibility with transcatheter intracardiac procedure device leading to prolonged treatment time or device failure Non-clinical performance testing, Animal testing, Clinical performance testing, and Labeling. Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility evaluation. Infection Sterilization validation, Shelf life testing, and Labeling. Vascular injury due to device delivery, deployment, placement, or retrieval Non-clinical performance testing, Animal testing, Clinical performance testing, and Labeling.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.

III. Analysis of Environmental Impact

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 870

Medical devices.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:

PART 870—CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 870 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

2. Add § 870.1251 to subpart B to read as follows:
§ 870.1251 Temporary catheter for embolic protection during transcatheter intracardiac procedures.

(a) Identification. This device is a single use percutaneous catheter system that has (a) blood filter(s) at the distal end. This device is indicated for use while performing transcatheter intracardiac procedures. The device is used to filter blood in a manner that may prevent embolic material (thrombus/debris) from the transcatheter intracardiac procedure from traveling towards the cerebral circulation.

(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

(1) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:

(i) Simulated-use testing in a clinically relevant bench anatomic model to assess the following:

(A) Delivery, deployment, and retrieval, including quantifying deployment and retrieval forces, and procedural time; and

(B) Device compatibility and lack of interference with the transcatheter intracardiac procedure and device.

(ii) Tensile strengths of joints and components, tip flexibility, torque strength, torque response, and kink resistance.

(iii) Flow characteristics.

(A) The ability of the filter to not impede blood flow.

(B) The amount of time the filter can be deployed in position and/or retrieved from its location without disrupting blood flow.

(iv) Characterization and verification of all dimensions.

(2) Animal testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be assessed:

(i) Delivery, deployment, and retrieval, including quantifying procedural time.

(ii) Device compatibility and lack of interference with the transcatheter intracardiac procedure and device.

(iii) Flow characteristics.

(A) The ability of the filter to not impede blood flow.

(B) The amount of time the filter can be deployed in position and/or retrieved from its location without disrupting blood flow.

(iv) Gross pathology and histopathology assessing vascular injury and downstream embolization.

(3) All patient contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

(4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components intended to be provided sterile.

(5) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the identified shelf life.

(6) Labeling for the device must include:

(i) Instructions for use;

(ii) Compatible transcatheter intracardiac procedure devices;

(iii) A detailed summary of the clinical testing conducted; and

(iv) A shelf life and storage conditions.

(7) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate:

(i) The ability to safely deliver, deploy, and remove the device;

(ii) The ability of the device to filter embolic material while not impeding blood flow;

(iii) Secure positioning and stability of the position throughout the transcatheter intracardiac procedure; and

(iv) Evaluation of all adverse events including death, stroke, and vascular injury.

Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-01638 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 878 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6598] Medical Devices; General and Plastic Surgery Devices; Classification of the Surgical Smoke Precipitator AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the surgical smoke precipitator into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the surgical smoke precipitator's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.

DATES:

This order is effective January 30, 2018. The classification was applicable on December 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Elliott, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2565, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5285, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Upon request, FDA has classified the surgical smoke precipitator as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

II. De Novo Classification

On May 26, 2015, Alesi Surgical submitted a request for De Novo classification of the UltravisionTM Visual Field Clearing System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on December 20, 2016, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 878.5050. We have named the generic type of device surgical smoke precipitator, and it is identified as a prescription device intended for clearance of the visual field by precipitation of surgical smoke and other aerosolized particulate matter created during laparoscopic surgery.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

Table 1—Surgical Smoke Precipitator Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risks Mitigation measures Electrical shock Electrical safety testing and Labeling. Electromagnetic interference with other devices Electromagnetic compatibility testing and Labeling. Infection Sterilization validation, Shelf-life validation, and Labeling. Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility evaluation. Tissue injury Animal testing; Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis; and Labeling.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.

At the time of classification, surgical smoke precipitators are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)).

III. Analysis of Environmental Impact

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 878

Medical devices.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 878 is amended as follows:

PART 878—GENERAL AND PLASTIC SURGERY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 878 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

2. Add § 878.5050 to subpart F to read as follows:
§ 878.5050 Surgical smoke precipitator.

(a) Identification. A surgical smoke precipitator is a prescription device intended for clearance of the visual field by precipitation of surgical smoke and other aerosolized particulate matter created during laparoscopic surgery.

(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

(1) Adverse tissue reaction must be mitigated through the following:

(i) Chemical characterization and toxicological risk assessment of the treated surgical smoke.

(ii) Demonstration that the elements of the device that may contact the patient are biocompatible.

(2) Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended.

(3) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

(4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the patient contacting components of the device.

(5) Performance data must support the shelf life of the sterile components of the device by demonstrating continued functionality, sterility, and package integrity over the identified shelf life.

(6) Animal simulated-use testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:

(i) Device must be demonstrated to be effectively inserted, positioned, and removed from the site of use.

(ii) Device must be demonstrated to precipitate surgical smoke particulates to clear the visual field for laparoscopic surgeries.

(iii) Device must be demonstrated to be non-damaging to the site of use and animal subject.

(7) Labeling must identify the following:

(i) Detailed instructions for use.

(ii) Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility information.

(iii) A shelf life.

Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-01639 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 51 [Public Notice: 9867] RIN 1400-AE01 Passports: Service Passports AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule finalizes the interim final rule from the Department of State that established a new service passport, which may be approved for certain non-personal services contractors who travel abroad in support of and pursuant to a contract with the U.S. government. The Department received no public comments in response to the rule.

DATES:

Effective January 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sitara Kedilaya, Attorney-Adviser, [email protected], (202) 485-6500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On September 30, 2016, the Department published an interim final rule amending 22 CFR part 51, to create a “service passport” that would be used by non-personal services contractors to carry out critical security, maintenance and other functions on behalf of the U.S. government. As noted in the interim final rule, the Department estimates that this rulemaking will affect approximately 1,000 non-personal services contractors per year. Further information concerning the rationale for this rule can be found in the interim final rule.

The Department provided 60 days for the public to comment on this rule. This period expired on November 29, 2016. The Department received no public comments.

The Regulatory Findings included with the interim final rule are incorporated herein. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 51

Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

PART 51—PASSPORTS Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 22 CFR part 51, which was published at 81 FR 67156 on September 30, 2016, is adopted as a final rule without change. Carl C. Risch, Assistant Secretary, Consular Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018-01708 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0025] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to make adjustments to new equipment. This deviation allows the bridge to operate the double bascule span one side at a time, single leaf.

DATES:

This deviation is effective without actual notice from January 30, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 1 a.m. on January 27, 2018, through January 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0025, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Multnomah County, the bridge owner, requested the Broadway Bridge be authorized to open half the span in single leaf mode to make adjustments to newly installed equipment. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 11.7, and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed-to-navigation position, and provides 125 feet of horizontal clearance with half the span open. This bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897. This deviation allows the double bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, to operate the bridge in single leaf mode to marine traffic. The deviation period will be from 1 a.m. on January 27, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2018. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times.

Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. One particular shipping company regularly requests a full bridge span opening in order to transit the river. In anticipation of this deviation, the shipping company has agreed to give a 7 day notice and a 24 hour notice to the bridge owner for a request of a full bridge span opening. If this procedure is followed, the bridge owner has agreed to comply with these requests.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: January 16, 2018. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-01703 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 223 Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber CFR Correction In Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 113, the heading of Part 223 and an effective date note are reinstated to read as follows: PART 223—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER Effective Date Note:

At 73 FR 79386, Dec. 29, 2008, the heading of part 223 was revised, effective Jan. 28, 2009. At 74 FR 5107, Jan. 29, 2009, the amendment was delayed until Mar. 30, 2009. At 74 FR 14049, Mar. 30, 2009, the amendment was further delayed until May 29, 2009. At 74 FR 26091, June 1, 2009, the amendment was delayed indefinitely. For the convenience of the user, the revised text is set forth as follows:

PART 223—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER, SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS, AND FOREST BOTANICAL PRODUCTS
[FR Doc. 2018-01806 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Parts 201 and 202 [Docket No. 2017-16] Group Registration of Newspapers AGENCY:

U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulation governing the group registration option for newspapers. The final rule will make a number of changes to reflect current Office practices, improve the efficiency of the registration process, and encourage broader participation in the registration system by reducing the burden on applicants. Specifically, the final rule revises the definition of “newspaper issues” and clarifies that the group registration option may be used to register any qualifying “newspaper issue.” The final rule will also require applicants to file an online application rather than a paper application, and upload a complete digital copy of each issue through the Office's electronic registration system instead of submitting them in physical form. Digital copies of newspapers received by the Office under this group registration option will be offered to the Library of Congress for use in its collections, and the Library intends to provide public access to these digital files, subject to the restrictions set forth in the final rule. Applicants may continue to submit their issues on microfilm on a voluntary basis (in addition to and at the same time as submitting digital files) if the microfilm is received by December 31, 2019. After that date, the microfilm option will be eliminated. The final rule clarifies that each issue in the group must be a new collective work and a work made for hire, that the author and copyright claimant for each issue must be the same person or organization, and that the claim must be received within three months after the publication of the earliest issue in the group. Finally, the rule confirms that a group registration covers each issue in the group, as well as any contributions appearing within each issue if they are fully owned by the copyright claimant and if they were first published in those issues.

DATES:

Effective March 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice, or Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration Policy and Practice, by telephone at 202-707-8040, or by email at [email protected] and [email protected]; or Anna Bonny Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by telephone at 202-707-8350, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

When Congress enacted the Copyright Act of 1976 (the “Act”), it authorized the Register of Copyrights (the “Register”) to specify by regulation the administrative classes of works for the purpose of seeking a registration, and the nature of the deposits required for each such class. In addition, Congress granted the Register the discretion to allow groups of related works to be registered with one application and one filing fee. See 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1). Congress cited “the various editions or issues of a daily newspaper” as a specific example of a “group of related works” that would be suitable for a group registration. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 154 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770; S. Rep. No. 94-473, at 136 (1975).

On November 6, 2017, the Copyright Office (the “Office”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) setting forth proposed amendments to the current regulation governing the group registration option for newspapers. 82 FR 51369 (Nov. 6, 2017). The NPRM proposed modifying the requirements for this group registration option in several respects. First, the proposed rule would make any newspaper, as defined in the regulation, eligible for a group registration, regardless of whether the Library of Congress (the “Library”) has selected that newspaper for its collections. Second, it would require applicants to register their newspapers through the Office's electronic registration system in lieu of using paper applications. Third, it would amend the deposit requirements by requiring applicants to upload their newspapers in digital form through the Office's electronic registration system. Applicants would no longer be required to submit microfilm containing a complete copy of each issue (although they could submit microfilm on a voluntary basis, in addition to uploading digital copies) if the microfilm is received by December 31, 2019, after which the microfilm option would be eliminated. Fourth, applicants would be required to submit their claim within three months after the date of publication for the earliest issue in the group, rather than the most recent issue. Fifth, the proposed rule confirmed that deposits submitted for the purpose of group registration would satisfy the mandatory deposit requirement under section 407. Sixth, it confirmed that the Library may provide limited access to any digital newspaper deposits that it receives from the Office under the group registration option, subject to certain restrictions. Seventh, the proposed rule codified the Office's longstanding position regarding the scope of a registration for a group of newspaper issues, namely, that a group registration covers each issue in the group, as well as the articles, photographs, illustrations, or other contributions appearing within each issue—if they are fully owned by the copyright claimant and if they were first published in those issues. Finally, the proposed rule would implement some technical amendments to address certain inconsistencies in the current regulation.

In response to the NPRM, the Office received comments from the News Media Alliance (“NMA”),1 the Copyright Alliance, and three individuals.2 The NMA “strongly supports the Copyright Office's proposal to broaden the eligibility and formatting requirements for group registration of newspapers and to permit the submission of deposits in digital form rather than on microfilm.” NMA Comment at 3. The Copyright Alliance endorsed NMA's comments and “joins in applauding the Copyright Office for its proposal permitting broader group registration for newspapers and accepting deposits in PDF format rather than microfilm.” Copyright Alliance Comment at 1. Of the individuals submitting comments, one expressed support for the proposed rule, one provided non-substantive comments, and one expressed concern about charging a filing fee.3

1 The NMA is a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of more than 2,000 newspapers in the United States and around the world.

2 All of the comments submitted in response to the NPRM can be found on the Copyright Office's website at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/group-newspapers/.

3 The Office notes that the Copyright Act provides that “[f]ees shall be paid to the Register of Copyrights” when “filing each application . . . for registration of a copyright claims.” 17 U.S.C. 708(a), (a)(1) (emphasis added). The same individual also stated that the regulatory definition of “newspaper” should be amended to include “electronic” publications, because they “have an important presence in our society.” M. Ibarra Comment at 2. As noted in the NPRM, the final rule may be used to register a newspaper that is distributed in an electronic format, such as a PDF version of a physical publication. To do so, the publisher would have to demonstrate that each issue contains a fixed selection of content, each issue is distributed as a collective work, and the content of each issue does not change once it has been distributed to the public. 82 FR at 51373. To the extent the commenter is referring to newspaper websites, the Office reiterates that a website would not be considered a “newspaper” for purposes of this group registration option, for the reasons stated in the NPRM. See id.

Having reviewed and carefully considered the comments, the Office now issues a final rule that is almost substantively identical to the proposed rule.4 The NPRM stated that the Office will allow applicants to submit microfilm copies in addition to uploading digital copies (if the microfilm is received by December 31, 2019) in case publishers need time to develop quality assurance testing to ensure complete digital submissions. For avoidance of doubt, the final rule clarifies that microfilm copies may be used to cure deficiencies in the digital files at the Register's discretion. The final rule also clarifies that the microfilm copies must be submitted at the same time as the application, but the effective date of registration for this group option will be the date on which the Office receives an acceptable application, the digital files, and the proper filing fee.

4 A few technical changes have been made to account for recent amendments resulting from other rulemakings. See, e.g., 82 FR 29410 (Nov. 13, 2017).

The NMA asked the Office to clarify when the final rule will go into effect. As stated above, the final rule takes effect on March 1, 2018. Under the final rule, applicants will be required to submit their claims within three months after the date of publication for the earliest issue in the group. Thus, the final rule may be used to register newspaper issues published on or after December 1, 2017, provided that the claim is received in a timely manner.5 Because applicants will be required to include a full month of issues in each claim, and because they will be required to submit their claims within three months after the publication of the earliest issue in the group (rather than the most recent issue), it makes sense for the final rule to go into effect on the first day of March 2018.

5 Issues published in October 2017 and November 2017 may be registered under the regulation currently set forth in § 202.3(b)(7), provided that the claim is received within three months after the date of publication for the most recent issue in the group. Issues published before October 1, 2017 are no longer eligible for the group registration option, and thus, would have to be registered on an individual basis. See 37 CFR 202.3(b)(7)(i)(F).

The NMA also asked the Office to provide more information on what publishers will be expected to do when the final rule goes into effect. The Office is developing several new resources in response to this request. The Office will prepare a video tutorial explaining how to complete the application for the group registration option for newspapers, as well as revise the “help text” within the application itself to reflect the new registration requirements. In addition, the Office will update its various circulars discussing the Office's practices and procedures for this group registration option, and the Office intends to make similar changes to the sections of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition that discuss this option.

List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 201

Copyright, General provisions.

37 CFR Part 202

Copyright, Preregistration and registration of claims to copyright.

Final Regulations

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

17 U.S.C. 702.

2. In § 201.1, add a sentence at the end of paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
§ 201.1 Communication with the Copyright Office.

(c) * * *

(6) * * * Newspaper publishers that submit microfilm under § 202.4(e) of this chapter should mail their submissions to: Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Attn: 407 Deposits, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559.

3. In § 201.3, revise paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:
§ 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation, and related services, special services, and services performed by the Licensing Division.

(c) * * *

(7) Registration of a claim in a group of newspapers or a group of newsletters 80
PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT 4. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows: Authority:

17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.

§ 202.3 [Amended]
5. Amend § 202.3 in (b)(1)(v) by removing “periodicals; newspapers;” and adding in its place “periodicals (including newspapers);” and by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(7). 6. Amend § 202.4 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (b). b. Add paragraph (e). c. Amend paragraph (g)(4) by removing the second and third sentences. d. Revise paragraph (n).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 202.4 Group registration.

(b) Definitions. (1) For purposes of this section, unless otherwise specified, the terms used have the meanings set forth in §§ 202.3, 202.13, and 202.20.

(2) For purposes of this section, the term Library means the Library of Congress.

(3) For purposes of this section, a periodical is a collective work that is issued or intended to be issued on an established schedule in successive issues that are intended to be continued indefinitely. In most cases, each issue will bear the same title, as well as numerical or chronological designations.

(e) Group registration of newspapers. Pursuant to the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), the Register of Copyrights has determined that a group of newspaper issues may be registered with one application, the required deposit, and the filing fee required by § 201.3(c) of this chapter, if the following conditions are met:

(1) Issues must be newspapers. All the issues in the group must be newspapers. For purposes of this section, a newspaper is a periodical (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) that is mainly designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope. A newspaper contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter. Newspapers are intended either for the general public or for a particular ethnic, cultural, or national group.

(2) Requirements for newspaper issues. Each issue in the group must be an all-new collective work that has not been previously published (except where earlier editions of the same newspaper are included in the deposit together with the final edition), each issue must be fixed and distributed as a discrete, self-contained collective work, and the claim in each issue must be limited to the collective work.

(3) Author and claimant. Each issue in the group must be a work made for hire, and the author and claimant for each issue must be the same person or organization.

(4) Time period covered. All the issues in the group must be published under the same continuing title, and they must be published within the same calendar month and bear issue dates within that month. The applicant must identify the earliest and latest date that the issues were published.

(5) Application. The applicant must complete and submit the online application designated for a group of newspaper issues. The application may be submitted by any of the parties listed in § 202.3(c)(1).

(6) Deposit. (i) The applicant must submit one complete copy of the final edition of each issue published in the calendar month designated in the application. Each submission may also include earlier editions of the same newspaper issue, provided that they were published on the same date as the final edition. Each submission may also include local editions of the newspaper issue that were published within the same metropolitan area, but may not include national or regional editions that were distributed outside that metropolitan area.

(ii)(A) The issues must be submitted in a digital form, and each issue must be contained in a separate electronic file. The applicant must use the file-naming convention and submit digital files in accordance with instructions specified on the Copyright Office's website. The files must be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF), they must be assembled in an orderly form, and they must be uploaded to the electronic registration system as individual electronic files (i.e., not .zip files). The files must be viewable and searchable, contain embedded fonts, and be free from any access restrictions (such as those implemented through Digital Rights Management (DRM)). The file size for each uploaded file must not exceed 500 megabytes, but files may be compressed to comply with this requirement.

(B) Until December 31, 2019, the applicant may also submit the complete issues on positive 35mm silver halide microfilm at the same time as the application, in addition to providing electronic copies of the newspaper issues pursuant to paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A) of this section. The issues should be arranged on the microfilm in chronological order, and should be sent to: Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Attn: 407 Deposits, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559. Should the applicant submit microfilm copies in addition to electronic files under paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A) of this section, the effective date of registration for a group registration under paragraph (e) of this section will be the date on which the Office received an acceptable application, the electronic files submitted under paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A), and the proper filing fee. If the electronic files submitted under paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A) are deficient and the applicant also submits microfilm copies, the Register shall have discretion in determining whether the microfilm copies may be used to cure deficiencies in the electronic files (e.g., an electronic file is missing some pages from one newspaper issue, but the microfilm contains a complete version of each issue in the group). In cases where the Register determines that microfilm copies can be used to cure deficiencies in the electronic files submitted under paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A), the effective date of registration for a group registration under paragraph (e) of this section will be the date on which the Office received an acceptable application, the electronic files submitted under paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A), and the proper filing fee.

(7) The application, the filing fee, and files specified in paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(A) of this section must be received by the Copyright Office within three months after the date of publication for the earliest issue in the group.

(n) The scope of a group registration. When the Office issues a group registration under paragraph (e) of this section, the registration covers each issue in the group and each issue is registered as a separate collective work. When the Office issues a group registration under paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (k) of this section, the registration covers each work in the group and each work is registered as a separate work. For purposes of registration, the group as a whole is not considered a compilation, a collective work, or a derivative work under section 101, 103(b), or 504(c)(1) of title 17 of the United States Code.

7. Add § 202.18 to read as follows:
§ 202.18 Access to electronic works.

(a) Access to electronic works received under § 202.4(e) will be available only to authorized users at Library of Congress premises in accordance with the policies listed below. Library staff may access such content off-site as part of their assigned duties via a secure connection.

(b) Access to each individual electronic work received under § 202.4(e) will be limited, at any one time, to two Library of Congress authorized users via a secure server over a secure network that serves Library of Congress premises.

(c) The Library of Congress will not make electronic works received under § 202.4(e) available to the public over the internet without rightsholders' permissions.

(d) “Authorized user” means Library of Congress staff, contractors, and registered researchers, and Members, staff and officers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for the purposes of this section.

(e) “Library of Congress premises” means all Library of Congress premises in Washington, DC, and the Library of Congress Packard Campus for Audio-Visual Conservation in Culpeper, VA.

8. In § 202.19, revise paragraph (d)(2)(ix) to read as follows:
§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the Library of Congress.

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(ix) In the case of published newspapers, a deposit submitted pursuant to and in compliance with the group registration option under § 202.4(e) shall be deemed to satisfy the mandatory deposit obligation under this section.

Dated: January 10, 2018. Karyn Temple Claggett, Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Approved by:

Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2018-01838 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 424 [CMS-6059-N8] Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcement of the Extension of Temporary Moratoria on Enrollment of Part B Non-Emergency Ground Ambulance Suppliers and Home Health Agencies in Designated Geographic Locations AGENCY:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION:

Extension of temporary moratoria.

SUMMARY:

This document announces the extension of statewide temporary moratoria on the enrollment of new Medicare Part B non-emergency ground ambulance providers and suppliers and Medicare home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, as applicable, to prevent and combat fraud, waste, and abuse. This extension also applies to the enrollment of new non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers and home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program in those states. For purposes of these moratoria, providers that were participating as network providers in one or more Medicaid managed care organizations prior to January 1, 2018 will not be considered “newly enrolling” when they are required to enroll with the State Medicaid agency pursuant to a new statutory requirement, and thus will not be subject to the moratoria.

DATES:

Applicable January 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jung Kim, (410) 786-9370.

News media representatives must contact CMS' Public Affairs Office at (202) 690-6145 or email them at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background A. CMS' Implementation of Temporary Enrollment Moratoria

The Social Security Act (the Act) provides the Secretary with tools and resources to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In particular, section 1866(j)(7) of the Act provides the Secretary with authority to impose a temporary moratorium on the enrollment of new Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP providers and suppliers, including categories of providers and suppliers, if the Secretary determines a moratorium is necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, or abuse under these programs. Regarding Medicaid, section 1902(kk)(4) of the Act requires States to comply with any moratorium imposed by the Secretary unless the State determines that the imposition of such moratorium would adversely impact Medicaid beneficiaries' access to care. In addition, section 2107(e)(1)(F) of the Act provides that the Medicaid provision in section 1902(kk) of the Act is also applicable to CHIP.

In the February 2, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 5862), CMS published a final rule with comment period titled, “Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratoria, Payment Suspensions and Compliance Plans for Providers and Suppliers,” which implemented section 1866(j)(7) of the Act by establishing new regulations at 42 CFR 424.570. Under § 424.570(a)(2)(i) and (iv), CMS, or CMS in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG) or the Department of Justice (DOJ), or both, may impose a temporary moratorium on newly enrolling Medicare providers and suppliers if CMS determines that there is a significant potential for fraud, waste, or abuse with respect to a particular provider or supplier type, or particular geographic locations, or both. At § 424.570(a)(1)(ii), CMS stated that it would announce any temporary moratorium in a Federal Register document that includes the rationale for the imposition of such moratorium. This document fulfills that requirement.

In accordance with section 1866(j)(7)(B) of the Act, there is no judicial review under sections 1869 and 1878 of the Act, or otherwise, of the decision to impose a temporary enrollment moratorium. A provider or supplier may use the existing appeal procedures at 42 CFR part 498 to administratively appeal a denial of billing privileges based on the imposition of a temporary moratorium; however, the scope of any such appeal is limited solely to assessing whether the temporary moratorium applies to the provider or supplier appealing the denial. Under § 424.570(c), CMS denies the enrollment application of a provider or supplier if the provider or supplier is subject to a moratorium. If the provider or supplier was required to pay an application fee, the application fee will be refunded if the application was denied as a result of the imposition of a temporary moratorium (see § 424.514(d)(2)(v)(C)).

Based on this authority and our regulations at § 424.570, we initially imposed moratoria to prevent enrollment of new home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations 1 (hereafter referred to as HHAs) in Miami-Dade County, Florida and Cook County, Illinois, as well as surrounding counties, and Medicare Part B ground ambulance suppliers in Harris County, Texas and surrounding counties, in a notice issued on July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46339).2 We exercised this authority again in a notice published on February 4, 2014 (79 FR 6475) when we extended the existing moratoria for an additional 6 months and expanded them to include enrollment of HHAs in Broward County, Florida; Dallas County, Texas; Harris County, Texas; and Wayne County, Michigan and surrounding counties, and enrollment of ground ambulance suppliers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and surrounding counties. Then, we further extended these moratoria in documents issued on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44702), February 2, 2015 (80 FR 5551), July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44967), and February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5444). On August 3, 2016 (81 FR 51120), we extended the current moratoria for an additional 6 months and expanded them to statewide for the enrollment of new HHAs in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas, and Part B non-emergency ambulance suppliers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Our August 3, 2016 publication also announced the lifting of temporary moratoria for all Part B emergency ambulance suppliers.3 On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2363) and July 28, 2017 (82 FR 35122), CMS again issued a document to extend the temporary moratoria for a period of 6 months. On September 1, 2017, CMS lifted the statewide temporary moratorium on the enrollment of new Medicare Part B non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers in Texas under the authority of § 424.570(d). This lifting of the moratorium also applied to Medicaid and CHIP in Texas. This decision was a result of the Presidential Disaster Declaration signed on August 25, 2017 for several counties in the State of Texas due to Hurricane Harvey. Upon declaration of the disaster, CMS carefully reviewed the potential impact of continued moratoria in Texas, and decided to lift the temporary enrollment moratorium on non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers in Texas in order to aid in the disaster response. CMS published a formal announcement of this decision on November 3, 2017 (82 FR 51274).

1 As noted in the preamble to the final rule with comment period implementing the moratorium authority (February 2, 2011, 76 FR 5870), home health agency subunits and branch locations are subject to the moratoria to the same extent as any other newly enrolling home health agency.

2 CMS has identified an error in the provider and beneficiary saturation data described in our July 31, 2013 Federal Register notice (78 FR 46339). We have subsequently revised the methodology by which we determine provider and beneficiary saturation. Following these revisions to the methodology, we simulated application of our current 2016 methodology to the 2013 data, and determined that the 2013 decision to impose the moratorium would not have been impacted had the revised methodology been applied. Provider saturation remains one of the criteria used to determine whether to implement a moratorium. CMS has made market saturation data publicly available at https://data.cms.gov/market-saturation.

3 CMS also concurrently announced a demonstration under the authority provided in section 402(a)(l)(J) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-l(a)(l)(J)) that allows for access to care-based exceptions to the moratoria in certain limited circumstances after a heightened review of that provider has been conducted. This exception process also applies to Medicaid and CHIP providers in each state. This announcement may be found in the Federal Register document issued on August 3, 2016 (81 FR 51116).

B. Determination of the Need for Moratoria

In imposing these enrollment moratoria, CMS considered both qualitative and quantitative factors suggesting a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse. CMS relied on law enforcement's longstanding experience with ongoing and emerging fraud trends and activities through civil, criminal, and administrative investigations and prosecutions. CMS' determination of a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse in these provider and supplier types within these geographic locations was then confirmed by CMS' data analysis, which relied on factors the agency identified as strong indicators of risk. (For a more detailed explanation of this determination process and of these authorities, see the July 31, 2013 notice (78 FR 46339) or February 4, 2014 moratoria document (79 FR 6475)).

Because fraud schemes are highly migratory and transitory in nature, many of CMS' program integrity authorities and anti-fraud activities are designed to allow the agency to adapt to emerging fraud in different locations. The laws and regulations governing CMS' moratoria authority give us flexibility to use any and all relevant criteria for future moratoria, and CMS may rely on additional or different criteria as the basis for future moratoria.

1. Application to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

The February 2, 2011, final rule also implemented section 1902(kk)(4) of the Act, establishing new Medicaid regulations at § 455.470. Under § 455.470(a)(1) through (3), the Secretary may impose a temporary moratorium, in accordance with § 424.570, on the enrollment of new providers or provider types after consulting with any affected State Medicaid agencies. The State Medicaid agency must impose a temporary moratorium on the enrollment of new providers or provider types identified by the Secretary as posing an increased risk to the Medicaid program unless the State determines that the imposition of such moratorium would adversely affect Medicaid beneficiaries' access to medical assistance and so notifies the Secretary. The final rule also implemented section 2107(e)(1)(D) of the Act by providing, at § 457.990 of the regulations, that all of the provisions that apply to Medicaid under sections 1902(a)(77) and 1902(kk) of the Act, as well as the implementing regulations, also apply to CHIP.

Section 1866(j)(7) of the Act authorizes imposition of a temporary enrollment moratorium for Medicare, Medicaid, and/or CHIP, “if the Secretary determines such moratorium is necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, or abuse under either such program.” While there may be exceptions, CMS believes that generally, a category of providers or suppliers that poses a risk to the Medicare program also poses a similar risk to Medicaid and CHIP. Many of the anti-fraud provisions in the Act reflect this concept of “reciprocal risk” in which a provider that poses a risk to one program poses a risk to the other programs. For example, section 1902(a)(39) of the Act requires State Medicaid agencies to terminate the participation of an individual or entity if such individual or entity is terminated under Medicare or any other State Medicaid plan. Additional provisions in the Act also support the determination that categories of providers and suppliers pose the same risk to Medicaid as to Medicare. Section 1866(j) of the Act requires us to establish levels of screening for categories of providers and suppliers based on the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse determined by the Secretary. Section 1902(kk) of the Act requires State Medicaid agencies to screen providers and suppliers based on the same levels established for the Medicare program. This reciprocal concept is also reflected in the Medicare moratoria regulations at § 424.570(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), which permit CMS to impose a Medicare moratorium based solely on a State imposing a Medicaid moratorium. Accordingly, CMS has determined that there is a reasonable basis for concluding that a category of providers or suppliers that poses a risk to Medicare also poses a similar risk to Medicaid and CHIP, and that a moratorium in all of these programs is necessary to effectively combat this risk.

2. Consultation With Law Enforcement

In consultation with the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), CMS previously identified two provider and supplier types in nine geographic locations that warrant a temporary enrollment moratorium. For a more detailed discussion of this consultation process, see the July 31, 2013 notice (78 FR 46339) or February 4, 2014 moratoria document (79 FR 6475).

3. Data Analysis

In addition to consulting with law enforcement, CMS also analyzed its own data to identify specific provider and supplier types within geographic locations with significant potential for fraud, waste or abuse, therefore warranting the imposition of enrollment moratoria.

4. Beneficiary Access to Care

Beneficiary access to care in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP is of critical importance to CMS and its State partners, and CMS carefully evaluated access for the target moratorium locations with every imposition and extension of the moratoria. Prior to imposing and extending these moratoria, CMS reviewed Medicare data for these areas and found no concerns with beneficiary access to HHAs or ground ambulance suppliers. CMS also consulted with the appropriate State Medicaid Agencies and with the appropriate State Departments of Emergency Medical Services to determine if the moratoria would create access to care concerns for Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries. All of CMS' State partners were supportive of CMS' analysis and proposals, and together with CMS, determined that continuation of these moratoria would not create access to care issues for Medicaid or CHIP beneficiaries.

5. When a Temporary Moratorium Does Not Apply

Under § 424.570(a)(1)(iii), a temporary moratorium does not apply to any of the following: (1) Changes in practice location (2) changes in provider or supplier information, such as phone number or address; or (3) changes in ownership (except changes in ownership of HHAs that require initial enrollment under § 424.550). Also, in accordance with § 424.570(a)(1)(iv), a temporary moratorium does not apply to any enrollment application that a Medicare contractor has already approved, but has not yet entered into the Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) at the time the moratorium is imposed.

6. Lifting a Temporary Moratorium

In accordance with § 424.570(b), a temporary enrollment moratorium imposed by CMS will remain in effect for 6 months. If CMS deems it necessary, the moratorium may be extended in 6-month increments. CMS will evaluate whether to extend or lift the moratorium before the end of the initial 6-month period and, if applicable, any subsequent moratorium periods. If one or more of the moratoria announced in this document are extended, CMS will publish a document regarding such extensions in the Federal Register.

As provided in § 424.570(d), CMS may lift a moratorium at any time if the President declares an area a disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, if circumstances warranting the imposition of a moratorium have abated, if the Secretary has declared a public health emergency, or if, in the judgment of the Secretary, the moratorium is no longer needed.

Once a moratorium is lifted, the provider or supplier types that were unable to enroll because of the moratorium will be designated to the “high” screening level in accordance with §§ 424.518(c)(3)(iii) and 455.450(e)(2) if such provider or supplier applies at any time within 6 months from the date the moratorium was lifted.

II. Extension of Home Health and Ambulance Moratoria—Geographic Locations

CMS currently has in place statewide moratoria on newly enrolling HHAs in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas and Part B non-emergency ambulance suppliers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Under section 1932(d)(6)(A) of the Act, network providers in a Medicaid managed care organization are required to enroll with the State Medicaid agency no later than January 1, 2018. For purposes of these moratoria, providers that were participating as network providers in one or more managed care organizations before January 1, 2018 will not be considered “newly enrolling” when they are required to enroll with the State under this statutory requirement; and thus will not be subject to the moratoria.

As provided in § 424.570(b), CMS may deem it necessary to extend previously-imposed moratoria in 6-month increments. Under this authority, CMS is extending the temporary moratoria on the Medicare enrollment of HHAs and Part B non-emergency ground ambulance providers and suppliers in the geographic locations discussed herein. Under the regulations at § 455.470 and § 457.990, these moratoria also apply to the enrollment of HHAs and non-emergency ground ambulance providers and suppliers in Medicaid and CHIP in those locations. Under § 424.570(b), CMS is required to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing any extension of a moratorium, and this extension of moratoria document fulfills that requirement.

CMS consulted with the HHS-OIG regarding the extension of the moratoria on new HHAs and Part B non-emergency ground ambulance providers and suppliers in all of the moratoria states, and HHS-OIG agrees that a significant potential for fraud, waste, and abuse continues to exist regarding those provider and supplier types in these geographic areas. The circumstances warranting the imposition of the moratoria have not yet abated, and CMS has determined that the moratoria are still needed as we monitor the indicators and continue with administrative actions to combat fraud and abuse, such as payment suspensions and revocations of provider/supplier numbers. (For more information regarding the monitored indicators, see the February 4, 2014 moratoria document (79 FR 6475)).

Based upon CMS' consultation with the relevant State Medicaid agencies, CMS has concluded that extending these moratoria will not create an access to care issue for Medicaid or CHIP beneficiaries in the affected states at this time. CMS also reviewed Medicare data for these states and found there are no current problems with access to HHAs or ground ambulance providers or suppliers. Nevertheless, the agency will continue to monitor these locations to make sure that no access to care issues arise in the future.

Based upon our consultation with law enforcement and consideration of the factors and activities described previously, CMS has determined that the current temporary enrollment moratoria should be extended for an additional 6 months.

III. Summary of the Moratoria Locations

CMS is executing its authority under sections 1866(j)(7), 1902(kk)(4), and 2107(e)(1)(D) of the Act to extend and implement temporary enrollment moratoria on HHAs for all counties in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas, as well as Part B non-emergency ground ambulance providers and suppliers for all counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

IV. Clarification of Right to Judicial Review

Section 1866(j)(7)(B) of the Act states that there shall be no judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise, of a temporary moratorium imposed on the enrollment of new providers of services and suppliers if the Secretary determines that the moratorium is necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, or abuse. Accordingly, our regulations at 42 CFR 498.5(l)(4) state that for appeals of denials based on a temporary moratorium, the scope of review will be limited to whether the temporary moratorium applies to the provider or supplier appealing the denial. The agency's basis for imposing a temporary moratorium is not subject to review. Our regulations do not limit the right to seek judicial review of a final agency decision that the temporary moratorium applies to a particular provider or supplier. In the preamble to the February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5918) final rule with comment period establishing this regulation, we explained that “a provider or supplier may administratively appeal an adverse determination based on the imposition of a temporary moratorium up to and including the Department Appeal Board (DAB) level of review.” We are clarifying that providers and suppliers that have received unfavorable decisions in accordance with the limited scope of review described in § 498.5(l)(4) may seek judicial review of those decisions after they exhaust their administrative appeals. However, we reiterate that section 1866(j)(7)(B) of the Act precludes judicial review of the agency's basis for imposing a temporary moratorium.

V. Collection of Information Requirements

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

VI. Regulatory Impact Statement

CMS has examined the impact of this document as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major regulatory actions with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This document will prevent the enrollment of new home health providers and Part B non-emergency ground ambulance suppliers in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP in certain states. Though savings may accrue by denying enrollments, the monetary amount cannot be quantified. Since the imposition of the initial moratoria on July 31, 2013, more than 1187 HHAs and 24 ambulance companies in all geographic areas affected by the moratoria had their applications denied. We have found the number of applications that are denied after 60 days declines dramatically, as most providers and suppliers will not submit applications during the moratoria period. Therefore, this document does not reach the economic threshold, and thus is not considered a major action.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any one year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. CMS is not preparing an analysis for the RFA because it has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if an action may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, CMS defines a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) for Medicare payment purposes and has fewer than 100 beds. CMS is not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because it has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this document will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any regulatory action whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2017, that threshold is approximately $148 million. This document will have no consequential effect on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). It has been determined that this notice is a transfer notice that does not impose more than de minimis costs and thus is not a regulatory action for the purposes of E.O. 13771.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed regulatory action (and subsequent final action) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Because this document does not impose any costs on state or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this document was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Dated: January 12, 2018. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-01783 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary of the Interior 43 CFR Part 10 [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-24780; PPWOVPADU0/PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000] RIN 1024-AE40 Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule revises U.S. Department of the Interior regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to provide for annual adjustments of civil penalties to account for inflation under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.

DATES:

This rule is effective on January 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (“the Act”). The Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation no later than January 15 of each year.

II. Calculation of Annual Adjustments

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued guidance to assist Federal agencies in implementing the annual adjustments required by the Act which agencies must complete by January 15, 2018. See December 15, 2017, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Management and Budget, re: Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (M-18-03). The guidance states that the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2017, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.02041. (The annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U.) The guidance instructs agencies to complete the 2018 annual adjustment by multiplying each applicable penalty by the multiplier, 1.02041, and rounding to the nearest dollar. Further, the guidance instructs agencies to apply the multiplier to the most recent penalty amount that includes the catch-up adjustment required by the Act.

The annual adjustment applies to all civil monetary penalties with a dollar amount that are subject to the Act. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review. This final rule adjusts the following civil monetary penalties contained in the Department regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) for 2018 by multiplying 1.02041 by each penalty amount as updated by the catch-up adjustment made in 2017:

CFR citation Description of the penalty Current
  • penalty
  • including
  • catch-up
  • adjustment
  • Annual
  • adjustment
  • (multiplier)
  • Adjusted
  • penalty
  • 43 CFR 10.12(g)(2) Failure of Museum to Comply $6,533 1.02041 $6,666 43 CFR 10.12(g)(3) Continued Failure to Comply Per Day 1,307 1.02041 1,334

    Consistent with the Act, the adjusted penalty levels for 2018 will take effect immediately upon the effective date of the adjustment. The adjusted penalty levels for 2018 will apply to penalties assessed after that date including, if consistent with agency policy, assessments associated with violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015. The Act does not, however, change previously assessed penalties that the Department is collecting or has collected. Nor does the Act change an agency's existing statutory authorities to adjust penalties.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

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

    B. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)

    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771 because it is neither a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 or a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The RFA does not apply to this final rule because the Office of the Secretary is not required to publish a proposed rule for the reasons explained below in Section III.M.

    D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

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

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Takings (E.O. 12630)

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

    G. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

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

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

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

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

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

    I. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.

    J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    K. National Environmental Policy Act

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

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

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

    M. Administrative Procedure Act

    The Act requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments by no later than January 15, 2018 and by no later than January 15 each subsequent year, notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). OMB has interpreted this direction to mean that the usual APA public procedure for rulemaking—which includes public notice of a proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment, and a delay in the effective date of a final rule—is not required when agencies issue regulations to implement the annual adjustments to civil penalties that the Act requires. Accordingly, we are issuing the 2018 annual adjustments as a final rule without prior notice or an opportunity for comment and with an effective date immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 10

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaiian Natives, Historic preservation, Indians—claims, Indians—lands, Museums, Penalties, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary amends 43 CFR part 10 as follows:

    PART 10—NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 470dd; 25 U.S.C. 9, 3001 et seq.

    § 10.12 [Amended]
    2. In § 10.12: a. In paragraph (g)(2) introductory text, remove “$6,533” and add in its place “$6,666”. b. In paragraph (g)(3), remove “$1,307” and add in its place “$1,334”. Jason Larrabee, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, exercising the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01680 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 36 [CC Docket 80-286; FCC 17-55] Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects errors in the Code of Federal Regulations relating to the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules. In a rule published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017, the date “December 30, 2018” was inadvertently used, and is now replaced by “December 31, 2018,” the date adopted in the Commission's underlying order.

    DATES:

    Effective January 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rhonda Lien, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1540 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document contains correcting amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations to correct an erroneous date introduced in a Federal Register document published June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25535). A prior attempt to correct that date through a document published July 14, 2017 (82 FR 32489) was unsuccessful.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Uniform System of Accounts.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission corrects 47 CFR part 36 by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410 and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

    §§ 36.3, 36.123, 36.124, 36.125, 36.126, 36.141, 36.142, 36.152, 36.154, 36.155, 36.156, 36.157, 36.191, 36.212, 36.214, 36.372, 36.374, 36.375, 36.377, 36.378, 36.379, 36.380, 36.381, and 36.382 [Amended]
    2. In 47 CFR part 36, remove the date “December 30, 2018” and add, in its place, everywhere it appears the date “December 31, 2018” in the following places: a. Section 36.3(a) through (c), (d) introductory text, and (e); b. Section 36.123(a)(5) and (6); c. Section 36.124(c) and (d); d. Section 36.125(h) and (i); e. Section 36.126(b)(6), (c)(4), (e)(4), and (f)(2); f. Section 36.141(c); g. Section 36.142(c); h. Section 36.152(d); i. Section 36.154(g); j. Section 36.155(b); k. Section 36.156(c); l. Section 36.157(b); m. Section 36.191(d); n. Section 36.212(c); o. Section 36.214(a); p. Section 36.372; q. Section 36.374(b) and (d); r. Section 36.375(b)(4) and (5); s. Section 36.377(a) introductory text, (a)(1)(ix), (a)(2)(vii), (a)(3)(vii), (a)(4)(vii); (a)(5)(vii), and (a)(6)(vii); t. Section 36.378(b)(1); u. Section 36.379(b)(1) and (2); v. Section 36.380(d) and (e); w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and x. Section 36.382(a). Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01648 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 223 [Docket No. 151110999-7999-03] RIN 0648-XE314 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Listing the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a petition by Defenders of Wildlife, we, NMFS, are issuing a final rule to list the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharinus lonigmanus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have reviewed the status of the oceanic whitetip shark, including efforts being made to protect the species, and considered public comments submitted on the proposed listing rule as well as new information received since publication of the proposed rule. Based on all of this information, we have determined that the oceanic whitetip shark warrants listing as a threatened species. At this time, we conclude that critical habitat is not determinable because data sufficient to perform the required analyses are lacking; however, we solicit information on habitat features and areas in U.S. waters that may meet the definition of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Endangered Species Conservation Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, [email protected], (301) 427-8491.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 21, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife to list the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) as threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its entire range, or alternatively, to list two distinct population segments (DPSs) of the oceanic whitetip shark, as described in the petition, as threatened or endangered, and to designate critical habitat. We found that the petitioned action may be warranted for the species; and, on January 12, 2016, we published a positive 90-day finding for the oceanic whitetip shark (81 FR 1376), announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted range wide, and explaining the basis for the finding. We also announced the initiation of a status review of the species, as required by section 4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's decision on whether the species warranted listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA. On December 29, 2016, we published a proposed rule to list the oceanic whitetip shark as threatened (81 FR 96304). We requested public comments on the information in the proposed rule and associated status review during a 90-day public comment period, which closed on March 29, 2017. This final rule provides a discussion of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule and our final determination on the petition to list the oceanic whitetip shark under the ESA.

    Listing Determination Under the ESA

    We are responsible for determining whether species meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” to include any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife, which interbreeds when mature. The oceanic whitetip shark is a formally recognized species with no taxonomic uncertainty and thus meets the ESA definition of a “species.”

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and a threatened species as one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened species and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).

    When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available regarding the species' response to that threat, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following five threat factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.

    In assessing the extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark, we considered demographic risk factors, such as those developed by McElhany et al. (2000), to organize and evaluate the forms of risks. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our previous status reviews (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level according to four demographic viability factors: abundance and trends, population growth rate or productivity, spatial structure and connectivity, and genetic diversity. These viability factors reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.

    Scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the oceanic whitetip shark under present conditions and in the foreseeable future are based on our evaluation of the species' demographic risks and section 4(a)(1) threat factors. Our assessment of overall extinction risk considered the likelihood and contribution of each particular factor, synergies among contributing factors, and the cumulative impact of all demographic risks and threats on the species.

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect the species. Therefore, prior to making a listing determination, we also assess such protective efforts to determine if they are adequate to mitigate the existing threats.

    Summary of Comments

    In response to our request for comments on the proposed rule, we received a total of 356 comments. Comments were submitted by multiple organizations and individual members of the public from a minimum of 19 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, England, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Philippines, South Africa, St. Kitts and Nevis, Sweden, and the United States). Most of the comments were supportive of the proposed listing of the oceanic whitetip shark as threatened. A few commenters argued that the oceanic whitetip should be listed as endangered, and some commenters were opposed to the proposed listing of the oceanic whitetip shark altogether. We have considered all public comments, and we provide responses to all relevant issues raised by comments. We have not responded to comments outside the scope of this rulemaking, such as comments regarding the potential economic impacts of ESA listings, comments suggesting that certain types of activities be covered or excluded in any future regulations pursuant to ESA section 4(d) for threatened species, or comments suggesting the ESA is not the appropriate tool for conserving the oceanic whitetip shark. Summaries of comments received regarding the proposed rule and our responses are provided below.

    Comments on Proposed Listing Determination

    Comment 1: We received numerous comments that support the proposed listing of the oceanic whitetip shark as a threatened species under the ESA. A large majority of the comments were comprised of general statements expressing support for listing the oceanic whitetip shark as threatened under the ESA and were not accompanied by substantive information or references. Some of the comments were accompanied by information that is consistent with, or cited directly from, our proposed rule or draft status review report, including the observed population declines of the species, its prevalence in the international trade of shark fins, and the inadequacy of existing regulations to protect the species. Many comments also noted the importance of sharks as apex predators and their role in maintaining the balance of marine ecosystems. We also received two letters of support for our proposed rule to list the oceanic whitetip shark under the ESA that were accompanied by thousands of signatures: one letter had 3,306 signatures and the other had 24,020 signatures.

    Response: We acknowledge the numerous comments and the considerable public interest expressed in support of the conservation of the oceanic whitetip shark.

    Comment 2: We received several comments that disagreed with our proposed listing determination of threatened for the oceanic whitetip shark, and argued that the species should be listed as endangered instead for a variety of reasons. One commenter noted that the species should be listed as endangered (as opposed to threatened) because the species' stock is “much lower than accounted for in the finding.” Another commenter wrote that global warming, pollution (including increasing volumes of trash and plastic) and lack of genetic diversity all contribute to an endangered status. This particular commenter also disagreed that persistence at diminished abundance levels justifies a threatened listing, alleging that we characterized population declines of 70-80 percent as “reasonable.” Other commenters stated that while they agreed with us that the oceanic whitetip shark warrants listing under the ESA, they believe the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the species warrants listing as endangered as opposed to threatened due to inadequate regulatory mechanisms. One commenter provided a substantive discussion of several regulatory mechanisms in the Eastern Pacific that were deemed inadequate (see Comment 11 below for a detailed summary and response). Another commenter asserted that the species is endangered because past regulatory efforts to protect sharks have been unsuccessful in the United States (e.g., Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, and Shark Conservation Act of 2010). Other commenters noted that if the oceanic whitetip shark is likely going to be endangered in the foreseeable future, we should use a precautionary approach and list it as endangered now. Finally, a few commenters noted that listing the oceanic whitetip as threatened would not suffice to protect the species, and asserted that we can only promulgate take prohibitions for species that are listed as endangered.

    Response: We disagree with commenters that the oceanic whitetip shark should be listed as endangered. As explained in the proposed rule, there are several reasons why the oceanic whitetip shark does not meet the definition of an endangered species under the ESA. The oceanic whitetip shark is a globally distributed species that has not undergone any range contraction or experienced population extirpations in any portion of its range despite heavy harvest bycatch. Given that local extirpations are often a precursor to extinction events range wide, we consider this one indication that the species is not presently in danger of extinction. We could also not find any evidence to suggest that the threats of global warming or plastic pollution are having negative population-level effects on this species and the commenter provided no substantive information to support their claim that these are operative threats on the species. With regard to the species' low genetic diversity, we addressed this threat in detail in the status review report and proposed rule. We explained that the Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) team acknowledged the low genetic diversity of the species and concluded that it did not, in and of itself, necessarily equate to a risk of extinction, but when combined with the low levels of abundance and continued exploitation, it could pose a viable risk in the foreseeable future. In terms of oceanic whitetip shark abundance, we did not receive any information to suggest that the species' abundance is lower than what we accounted for in our status review report and proposed rule. We also never characterized this species' population declines as “reasonable;” in fact, the species' historical and ongoing declining trends in abundance is one of the major demographic risks we identified for the oceanic whitetip that led to our proposed determination of threatened for the species. However, based on analyses of fisheries observer data conducted by the ERA team and presented in the status review report (Young et al., 2017), the oceanic whitetip shark is showing stabilizing trends in abundance in a couple of areas, including the Northwest Atlantic and Hawaii. We concluded that these trends are likely attributable to U.S. fisheries management plans and species-specific regulations that have been in place for the oceanic whitetip for several years and will likely help maintain these trends in the near-term. Additionally, with respect to the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms, we concluded that the increase in species-specific regulatory mechanisms that prohibit the species in numerous fisheries throughout its range should help to reduce fisheries-related mortality and slow (but not necessarily halt) population declines to some degree, thus providing a temporal buffer in terms of the species' extinction risk. As such, we cannot conclude that the species is presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; rather, we maintain that the species is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future, and thus meets the statutory definition of a threatened species under the ESA.

    With regard to comments about using a precautionary approach when making a listing determination, we are only able to consider the best available scientific and commercial information to determine whether the species meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. Therefore, we are unable to utilize a precautionary approach and list a species as endangered when it does not meet the statutory definition of an endangered species at the time of listing.

    Finally, commenters are incorrect in their statements that only endangered species are afforded protections under the ESA in the form of take prohibitions. While it is true that only endangered species receive automatic protections under section 9 of the ESA at the time of listing, we have the discretion and ability to promulgate 4(d) regulations for threatened species to apply any or all of the same protections for threatened species, should we find them necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.

    Comment 3: In contrast to Comment 2 above, we also received a comment supporting our determination that the oceanic whitetip shark does not qualify as an endangered species. The commenter stated that the information in the proposed rule clearly does not support a conclusion that the species is presently “on the brink of extinction” and requested that we provide a more detailed explanation in our final decision as to why the oceanic whitetip shark does not qualify as an endangered species.

    Response: Although we disagree with the interpretation of endangered as being equivalent to “on the brink of extinction,” we do agree with the commenter regarding our determination that the oceanic whitetip shark is not presently in danger of extinction throughout its range (i.e., endangered). We explain our final decision regarding the listing status of the oceanic whitetip shark in our response to Comment 2 above and in the Final Listing Determination section below.

    Comment 4: One commenter asserted that we did not conduct the required analysis to determine that the oceanic whitetip shark is currently threatened. The commenter stated that although we provided a comprehensive summary of the present status of the oceanic whitetip shark, we did not provide an adequate analysis of the expected status of the species at the end of the foreseeable future. In other words, the commenter contends that we did not properly analyze whether, how, when and to what degree the identified threats will affect the species' status by the end of the foreseeable future (i.e., 30 years). The commenter also asserted that our reliance on the Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) team's assessment is flawed because there were mixed results regarding the species' overall extinction risk (e.g., 20 out of 60 likelihood points were allocated to the “low risk” category; 34 out of 60 likelihood points were allocated to the “moderate risk” category; and 6 out of 60 likelihood points were allocated to the “high risk” category). The commenter concluded that we did not consider the factors relevant to our decision nor make a rational connection between the facts and our determination.

    Response: We disagree with the commenter's characterization of our extinction risk analysis. With regard to the ERA team's methods and conclusions, the available data for the oceanic whitetip shark did not allow for a quantitative analysis or model of extinction risk into the foreseeable future. Therefore, the ERA team adopted the “likelihood point” (i.e., FEMAT; Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993) method for ranking the overall risk of extinction to allow individuals to express uncertainty. As explained in the proposed rule, this method has been used in previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident killer whale, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific herring, and black abalone) to structure the team's thinking and express levels of uncertainty when assigning risk categories. Therefore, while the ERA team distributed their likelihood points among all three risk categories to express some level of uncertainty, more than half of the available likelihood points were allocated to the “moderate risk” category. The ERA team's scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the oceanic whitetip shark is based on an evaluation of current demographic risks and identified threats to the species, and how these factors will likely impact the trajectory of the species into the foreseeable future. As noted in the proposed rule, the ERA team determined that due to significant and ongoing threats of overutilization and largely inadequate regulatory mechanisms, current trends in the species' abundance, productivity and genetic diversity place the species on a trajectory towards a high risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. In other words, given the likely continuation of present-day conditions over the next 30 years or so, the oceanic whitetip will more likely than not be at or near a level of abundance, productivity, and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question, and may be strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Therefore, while we were unable to quantify or model the expected condition of the species at the end of the foreseeable future, we thoroughly evaluated the best available scientific information regarding the species' current demographic risks and threats and made rational conclusions regarding the species' trajectory over the next 30 years based on the ERA team's expertise and professional judgement regarding the species, its threats, and fisheries management.

    Comments on Distinct Population Segments (DPSs)

    We received a few comments suggesting that we identify distinct population segments of the oceanic whitetip shark.

    Comment 5: One group of commenters disagreed with the proposed global listing of the oceanic whitetip shark as a threatened species. The commenters asserted that we failed to reach conclusions regarding recent genetic studies discussed in the status review and proposed rule (Ruck 2016 and Camargo et al., 2016), which they argue supports the identification of at least two DPSs. They provided further discussion of theories proposed by Ruck (2016) and Camargo et al. (2016) that population structure may reflect thermal barriers and female philopatry. As such, they requested that we re-assess the extinction risk of the species following a thorough analysis of potential distinct population segments (DPSs), specifically the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific populations, because the commenters believe that extinction risk analyses of these individual DPSs may result in a different listing determination. The commenters asserted that “Even when listing is warranted for the global species, NMFS has a duty to analyze potential DPSs.” The commenter also stated that conducting an extinction risk analysis at the DPS level (as opposed to the global level) would be “more meaningful and scientifically relevant for the oceanic whitetip shark's future management, including critical habitat designation and recovery planning strategies.”

    Response: We disagree with the commenters regarding our duty to analyze potential DPSs after finding the species warrants listing range-wide. The petition we received from Defenders of Wildlife clearly requested that we list the oceanic whitetip shark as threatened or endangered throughout its range. As an alternative to a global listing, the petition requested that if we found that there are DPSs of oceanic whitetips (specifically Indo-Pacific and Atlantic populations), that those DPSs be listed under the ESA. At the 90-day finding stage, we determined that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating listing may be warranted for the oceanic whitetip shark range-wide, and therefore, we initiated the status review on the global population (81 FR 1376, January 12, 2016). We specifically explained in the 90-day finding that if after this review we determined that the species did not warrant listing range-wide, then we would consider whether the populations requested by the petition qualify as DPSs and warrant listing. We concluded that the oceanic whitetip shark warrants listing as a threatened species throughout its range. As such, we have discretion as to whether we should divide a species into DPSs, and the commenter is incorrect that we are required to commit additional agency resources to conduct an analysis and break up the species into the smallest listable entity (i.e., DPSs) despite a warranted listing for the species globally. Nonetheless, we re-reviewed the two available genetic studies for the species (Ruck 2016 and Camargo et al., 2016), particularly in regards to discreteness between Atlantic and Indo-Pacific subpopulations. These studies differ in genetic markers and sampling locations, but neither provides strong evidence for genetic discontinuity. Camargo et al. (2016) compared mitochondrial DNA sequences of samples collected in eight locations, including the southeast Atlantic and the southwest Indian Oceans (i.e., on either side of the southern tip of Africa). They concluded there was an absence of genetic structure between the East Atlantic and Indian Ocean subpopulations. Though the Indian Ocean sample size was small (n=9), it included four haplotypes, all of which were also found in Atlantic Ocean subpopulations. Camargo et al. (2016) explained that this genetic connectivity (i.e., the existence of only one genetic stock around the African continent) may be facilitated by the warm Agulhas current, which passes under the Cape of Good Hope of South Africa and may transport oceanic whitetips from the Indian Ocean to the eastern Atlantic. Ruck (2016) compared longer mitochondrial DNA sequences and 11 microsatellite DNA loci of samples collected in seven locations; however, there were no samples from the southeast Atlantic and the southwest Indian Oceans (i.e., the closest sampling locations were Brazil and Arabian Sea). Ruck (2016) found weak but statistically significant differentiation between West Atlantic and Indo-Pacific subpopulations but explained that her study shows genetic evidence for contemporary migration between the West Atlantic and Indo-Pacific as a result of semi-permeable thermal barriers (i.e., the warm Agulhas current). Thus, we compare one study which may lack resolution but demonstrates genetic connectivity between the southeast Atlantic and the southwest Indian Ocean subpopulations (i.e., across the Agulhas current; Camargo et al., 2016) to another that finds weak genetic structure and low-level contemporary migration across great distances (i.e., the West Atlantic and the northern Indian Ocean; Ruck 2016). We conclude that neither study provides unequivocal evidence for genetic discontinuity or marked separation (i.e., discreteness) between Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Ocean subpopulations. Therefore, the best available data do not support the identification of these populations as DPSs.

    Overall, given the ambiguous nature of the genetics data, limited information regarding the movements of oceanic whitetip sharks, and our discretion to identify DPSs, we do not find cause nor are we required to break up the global population into DPSs. We also do not agree that breaking the global population up into two DPSs would enhance conservation of the species under the ESA. For a threatened species, we have the discretion to promulgate ESA section 4(d) regulations that can be tailored for specific populations and threats should we find it necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Recovery planning can also be tailored for the species in different parts of its range.

    Comment 6: Another commenter also urged us to break up the global population into DPSs due to differences in regulatory mechanisms and management, specifically between the Northwest Atlantic and South Atlantic. The commenter argued that while regulatory measures in U.S. fisheries operating in the Northwest Atlantic are adequate for the oceanic whitetip, regulations for other fishing fleets in the South Atlantic (particularly Brazil) are likely inadequate. Therefore, the commenter asserted that oceanic whitetip sharks occurring in U.S. waters of the Northwest Atlantic should be identified as a DPS, such that the Northwest Atlantic population would not qualify as a threatened species.

    Response: We disagree with the commenter's interpretation of the DPS Policy and its intent. As noted previously, we have discretion with regard to listing DPSs in the case of the oceanic whitetip shark, and Congress has indicated that the provision to list DPSs should be used sparingly. Furthermore, the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) identifies two specific criteria that populations must meet in order to be listed as a DPS—discreteness and significance; and while management differences may be considered in our analysis, management differences are not a sufficient basis for delineating populations as DPSs. Additionally, in many cases recognition of DPSs can unduly complicate species management rather than further the conservation purposes of the statute. In this case, we could find no overriding conservation benefit to break up the global species into DPSs. Finally, as explained in the status review and proposed rule (Young et al., 2017; 81 FR 96304), despite the stabilizing trend in its current state, the Northwest Atlantic population represents a very small portion of the range of the species and is likely persisting at a diminished abundance, particularly given the common abundance documented historically for the oceanic whitetip in this part of its range. With no clear indication of population recovery to date, we still have some concern for the species in this part of its range. Therefore, given the species warrants listing as threatened throughout its range, we do not find cause to break up the population into smaller units.

    Comments on Significant Portion of Its Range

    Comment 7: One commenter asserted that the status review and proposed rule failed to analyze whether any particular regions of the oceanic whitetip shark's range qualify as significant portions of the species' range (SPR) under the SPR Policy. The commenter contended that had we conducted analyses of potential SPRs, we may have determined that oceanic whitetip sharks in a particular ocean basin (e.g., Atlantic and Pacific) or regions within an ocean basin (e.g., eastern and western Atlantic) face different levels of extinction risk and would result in a likely change of listing determination for the oceanic whitetip shark.

    Response: We disagree with the commenter's interpretation of the SPR Policy (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014), as well as their statement that we failed to analyze whether there are any portions of the oceanic whitetip shark's range that would qualify as an SPR, which implies we were required to do so. We believe Congress intended that, where the best available information allows the Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, such listing determination should be given conclusive weight. A rangewide determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment, and assigning such status to the species (rather than potentially assigning a different status based on a review of only a portion of the range) best implements the statutory distinction between threatened and endangered species. Maintaining this fundamental distinction is important for ensuring that conservation resources are allocated toward species according to their actual level of risk. We also note that Congress placed the “all” language before the “significant portion of its range” phrase in the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” This suggests that Congress intended that an analysis based on consideration of the entire range should receive primary focus, and thus that the agencies should do a “significant portion of its range” analysis as an alternative to a rangewide analysis only if necessary. Under this reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a “significant portion of its range” analysis if (and only if) a species does not qualify for listing as either endangered or threatened according to the “all” language. We note that this interpretation is also consistent with the 2014 Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” (79 FR 37578 (July 1, 2014)), which provides that a portion of a species' range can be “significant” only if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. The current SPR Policy defines “significant” as follows: “A portion of the range of a species is `significant' if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range” (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). For all of these reasons and based on the SPR Policy, because we determined the oceanic whitetip shark is currently threatened throughout all of its range, we did not conduct an additional SPR analysis to determine if a portion of the species' range is significant and whether the species is endangered in that portion.

    Comments on Threats to the Species

    Comment 8: We received a comment letter that articulated concern for an omission of information regarding various NMFS time/area seasonal closures for pelagic longline (PLL) gear in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that have been in place for many years along the East Coast. The commenter asserted that these closures have resulted in a reduction of oceanic whitetip shark bycatch, and this information should have been included in the status review report as an example of management that has benefited the species.

    Response: We acknowledge that the status review report did not specifically discuss the time/area seasonal closures for PLL gear in the U.S. EEZ along certain sections of the East Coast. We have since incorporated this information into the status review report. However, the commenter did not provide any details or data to show how these particular regulations have reduced oceanic whitetip shark bycatch in particular, and we are not aware of any scientific study or data that demonstrates the impacts of these closures on oceanic whitetip shark abundance. We agree that it's possible these particular regulations may have had a positive effect on reducing bycatch of oceanic whitetip shark in the Northwest Atlantic PLL fishery, particularly given the stabilizing trend shown by the ERA team's analysis of observer data from the fishery (which cover the aforementioned time/area seasonal closures), but there's no way to confirm this assertion based on the available data and information. Overall, as we explained in the status review report and proposed rule, we do agree that regulatory mechanisms in the Northwest Atlantic have likely improved the status of the oceanic whitetip shark in this portion of its range; however, the incorporation of this new information does not alter our overall assessment of the species' extinction risk throughout its global range.

    Comment 9: We received a comment letter from the Blue Water Fishermen's Association that disagreed with our conclusion that inadequate regulatory mechanisms are contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the species, and thus, our decision to list the species as threatened. The substance of the comment focused on regulatory mechanisms implemented for U.S. fishing vessels in the Northwest Atlantic, and asserted that these measures adequately reduce bycatch-related mortality and protect the species from fishing pressure, thus rendering the impacts of U.S. fisheries to the oceanic whitetip shark negligible. The commenter also asserted that the relevant Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) have taken adequate measures to protect the species globally by implementing measures to prohibit the retention of oceanic whitetip sharks in the fisheries over which they have competence. The commenter concluded that global regulations of both fisheries and trade (including the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)) are adequate to protect the oceanic whitetip shark, and therefore, the species does not warrant listing under the ESA.

    Response: As discussed previously in the response to Comment 8 above, we agree that regulatory mechanisms implemented in the Northwest Atlantic for the U.S. PLL fishery have likely contributed to the stabilization of the oceanic whitetip shark population in this portion of its range. We also agree that the no-retention measures implemented by the relevant RFMOs will also likely help reduce fisheries-related mortality of the species to some degree, when adequately enforced. Although there is arguably high compliance with, and adequate enforcement of, U.S. fisheries regulations, the oceanic whitetip shark is a highly migratory species and thus a shared resource across the Atlantic Ocean basin. Several other pelagic longline fleets impact the species, many of which have poor compliance with and enforcement of fisheries regulations. As such, U.S. regulatory mechanisms have limited impact on the global stage in that they only provide protections to oceanic whitetip sharks while in U.S. waters. While this does not make U.S. regulations inadequate in terms of their purpose of protecting oceanic whitetip sharks while in U.S. waters, regulations are likely inadequate in other parts of the world to prevent further population declines of oceanic whitetip as a result of overutilization. For example, we explained in the status review report and proposed rule that Brazil, which is the top oceanic whitetip catching country in the Atlantic, has poor enforcement of its fisheries regulations to mitigate the significant fishing pressure on oceanic whitetip sharks in the region. In fact, a recent review paper of legal instruments to manage fisheries in Brazil noted a “complete disrespect for the regulations” and showed that fleets continued to land prohibited or size limited species, including the oceanic whitetip shark (Fiedler et al., 2017). This means Brazil is not only non-compliant with their own national regulations that prohibit the landing and retention of oceanic whitetip sharks, but with international management measures as well.

    We also disagree that global regulations for fisheries and trade are adequate to control for the threat of overutilization via fishing pressure and the fin trade. For example, across the Pacific Ocean basin, the species has experienced and continues to experience concentrated fishing pressure and associated mortality in its core tropical distribution (Rice et al., 2015; Hall and Roman 2013). We also noted that implementation and enforcement of regulations to protect the species are likely variable across countries. Additionally, the retention-prohibition enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission is not being strictly adhered to in longline fisheries (Rice et al., 2015) and will not likely decrease mortality from purse seine fisheries (Young et al., 2017). Given the depleted status of oceanic whitetip sharks across the Pacific Ocean basin, less-than-full implementation of management measures will likely undermine benefits to the species. In terms of the shark fin trade, we discussed in the status review and proposed rule several incidents of illegal oceanic whitetip fin confiscations from fishing vessels in violation of RFMO management measures. Additionally, since the listing of oceanic whitetip shark under CITES Appendix II went into effect in 2014 to control for trade, approximately 1,263 kg (2,784 lbs) of oceanic whitetip fins have been confiscated upon entry into Hong Kong because the country of origin did not include the required CITES permits. This provides evidence that some countries are not adhering to requirements under CITES and oceanic whitetip fins continue to be traded without the proper documentation certifying that the trade is not negatively affecting the species' status. Therefore, we reaffirm our conclusion in the proposed rule (see 81 FR 96320) regarding the adequacy of U.S. regulatory mechanisms in the context of the species' global range.

    Comment 10: We received a similar comment from the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) that emphasized the negligible effect of the Hawaii-based longline fisheries on the global population of the oceanic whitetip shark due to adequate regulatory mechanisms. The commenter stated that Hawaii-based longline fisheries do not engage in finning or targeting of oceanic whitetip sharks, they incidentally catch very few oceanic whitetip sharks relative to foreign fisheries, and almost all incidentally caught individuals are released alive. Specifically, the commenter pointed out that from 2005-2016, the oceanic whitetip shark only comprised 0.16 percent of all species landed in shallow-set and deep-set longline fisheries combined. Additionally, the commenter noted that in recent years, the percentage of oceanic whitetip sharks released alive is high, ranging from 91-96 percent in the shallow-set fishery, and from 78-82 percent in the deep-set fishery. They also noted that Hawaii-based longline fisheries use a variety of practices to reduce potential adverse effects on the species. Finally, the commenter warned of potential unintended conservation consequences that could result from additional regulations placed on the Hawaii-based longline fisheries as a result of a threatened listing of the oceanic whitetip shark. The commenters asserted that the extensive regulatory system that the Hawaii-based longline fisheries are managed under can create a shift in fishing effort to the very species we are trying to protect by foreign fisheries that are much less regulated (if at all).

    We received comments from the Western and Central Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) along the same lines as comments from HLA, noting that the impact of the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries on the oceanic whitetip shark population is likely limited relative to overall impacts occurring throughout the rest of the species' range. The Council emphasized that the combination of state and federal regulations to prohibit shark finning has likely resulted in increased amounts of oceanic whitetip sharks released alive and asserted that the stabilizing CPUE trend for the Hawaii-based PLL fishery might be attributable to the high proportion of oceanic whitetip sharks released alive over the last 15 years. Additionally, the Council noted that the Hawaii and American Samoa fisheries are operating with gear configurations recommended to reduce shark bycatch (e.g., use of circle hooks and non-use of shark lines), which further reduce the fisheries' impact on the status of the oceanic whitetip shark.

    Response: We acknowledge the information provided by HLA and the Council regarding the impact of the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries on the global oceanic whitetip shark population and largely agree with their comments. We explained in the proposed rule that although the Hawaii-based PLL fishery currently catches oceanic whitetip sharks as bycatch, the majority of individuals are released alive in this fishery and the number of individuals kept has shown a declining trend. In fact, the comment letter from HLA provided the same exact statistics that we discussed in the proposed rule regarding the percentage of oceanic whitetip sharks released alive in the shallow-set and deep-set fisheries (i.e., 91-96 percent and 78-82 percent, respectively). We agree that due to the extensive regulatory measures the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries operate under, and the large proportion of individuals released alive, these fisheries may be less of a threat to the oceanic whitetip shark when compared to foreign industrial fisheries. However, while we agree that U.S. fisheries are not likely posing a significant threat to the species relative to foreign industrial fisheries, levels of implementation and enforcement of management measures by other fleets are likely variable across the region. As such, and as noted above in a previous comment response, given the depleted state of the oceanic whitetip population and significant level of fishing mortality the species experiences in this part of its range, less-than-full implementation across the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) will likely undermine the benefits of any adequately implemented and enforced management measures in U.S. fisheries. Therefore, in addition to the response we gave to Comment 9 above regarding the adequacy of U.S. regulatory mechanisms in context of the species' global range, we reiterate our conclusion from the proposed rule regarding the status of oceanic whitetip sharks across the Western and Central Pacific region. Given the ongoing impacts to the species from significant fishing pressure across the WCPO as a whole, (with the majority of effort concentrated in the species' core tropical habitat area), including significant declines in CPUE, biomass, and size indices, combined with the species' relatively low-moderate productivity, we conclude that overutilization has been and continues to be an ongoing threat contributing to the extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark across the region (see 81 FR 96315).

    With regard to unintended conservation consequences resulting from a threatened listing of the oceanic whitetip shark (i.e., a shift in fishing effort for the species by unregulated foreign industrial fisheries), we can only consider the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the biological status of the species when determining whether it meets the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA. Therefore, we are unable to consider hypothetical ramifications of protective regulations that the commenter believes may result from listing a species. However, it should be noted that any decision to extend protective regulations to the species via a 4(d) regulation that would potentially affect U.S. fisheries will be addressed in a separate rule-making process with opportunity for public comment and input.

    Comment 11: We received a comment letter from the Panama Aquatic Resources Authority within the Panama Ministry of the Environment with some new information regarding shark landings in Panama. The commenter explained that sharks are not reported at the species level in fisheries landing reports; therefore, there is no species-specific information regarding the oceanic whitetip shark in catch reports collected by the Authority. The commenter also reaffirmed information reported in the status review report and proposed rule regarding the significant decline in oceanic whitetip shark catches in the eastern Pacific purse seine fishery, which led to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission's (IATTC) resolution on the conservation of the species. The comment then provided landings data for sharks in the Port of Vacamontes, and noted that sharks are caught under various types of licenses and combinations of licenses, which indicates that shark fishing in Panama is a combination of directed and incidental catch by both longliners (bottom and surface) and trawls. The commenter also included information regarding artisanal and industrial fishing fleets, noting that the oceanic whitetip shark likely has the most interaction with the longline fishery; however, there is no way to corroborate this information with the landings data from the Panama Aquatic Resources Authority. The commenter concluded that although there are no landings data for oceanic whitetip shark in Panama, this does not necessarily mean the species is not caught. Nonetheless, the commenter agreed that the available information on the species' status in the region suggests that the species warrants protection.

    Response: We appreciate the information provided to us by the Panama Aquatic Resources Authority regarding shark fishing and landings data from Panamanian waters, and we have incorporated this information into our status review report for the oceanic whitetip shark. However, the information provided was very limited, and, as the commenter points out, species-specific information for oceanic whitetips in Panama is lacking. We agree with the commenter that although there is no species-specific catch or landings data, the oceanic whitetip likely interacts with the industrial longline fishery in these waters. Overall, because of the depleted status of the species in this region, any additional mortality in Panamanian waters due to bycatch in longlines supports our determination that overutilization is an ongoing threat to the species.

    Comment 12: We received a report from the organization Fins Attached (Arauz 2017) stating that existing management measures and regulations in the Eastern Pacific (e.g., Resolutions passed by the IATTC and various national laws in Costa Rica) are inadequate for oceanic whitetip sharks. The report gave several examples from Costa Rica where existing regulations are failing to achieve their objectives, including a 5 percent fin-to-body weight ratio, the IATTC's Resolution C-11-10 on the Conservation of Oceanic Whitetip Sharks (which prohibits Members and Cooperating non-Members (CPCs) from retaining or landing any part or whole oceanic white tip carcass in fisheries covered by the Antigua Convention), and Costa Rica's ban on the use of fish aggregating devices (FADs).

    Response: We appreciate the additional information provided in the Fins Attached report and have incorporated this information into our status review report for the oceanic whitetip shark. We agree with the commenter that existing regulatory mechanisms in the eastern Pacific are likely inadequate to halt or reverse population declines of the species in this portion of its range. As explained in the status review report and proposed rule, the IATTC's Resolution C-11-10 is not likely adequate to prevent capture and mortality in the main fishery that catches oceanic whitetip sharks in this region (i.e., the tropical tuna purse seine fishery). Therefore, because of the species' depleted status in the eastern Pacific and the ongoing fishing pressure from both purse seine and longline fisheries, we concluded that the retention prohibition for oceanic whitetip sharks in the eastern Pacific is not likely adequate in terms of effectively mitigating for the threat of overutilization in this region. The evidence provided of other inadequate regulations in this region further supports our conclusion that overutilization of oceanic whitetip shark in the Eastern Pacific is an ongoing, unabated threat contributing to the species' threatened status.

    Comment 13: We received a comment letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saint Kitts and Nevis, confirming that oceanic whitetip sharks are not targeted in the waters of St. Kitts and Nevis.

    Response: We acknowledge the letter and information provided by the government of St. Kitts and Nevis. Although it is useful to know that oceanic whitetip sharks are not targeted in the waters of St. Kitts and Nevis, this information does not alter our determination regarding the species' listing status, as the main issue for the oceanic whitetip shark is incidental bycatch-related mortality and not targeted fishing.

    Comment 14: We received a comment letter from an international conservation organization that expressed support for the proposed threatened listing for the oceanic whitetip shark, and concern for the species' low genetic diversity and its potential impact on the species' viability in the future. The commenter identified the African cheetah and northern elephant seal as examples of species in which severe genetic and population bottlenecks, respectively, occurred and led to low genetic variation in the seal and physiological impairments (e.g., decreased fecundity, high infant mortality and increased sensitivity to diseases) in the cheetah. The commenter urged us to continue to monitor the oceanic whitetip shark for any change in status, with particular concern for potential population or genetic bottlenecks that may result in increased inbreeding and subsequent impacts on the species' population viability in the future.

    Response: We agree with the commenter that the oceanic whitetip shark has relatively low genetic diversity compared to several other circumtropical sharks. As we described in the proposed rule, the oceanic whitetip sharks' relatively low mitochondrial DNA genetic diversity raises potential concern for the future genetic health of the species, particularly in concert with steep global declines in abundance. Because only 5-7 generations of oceanic whitetip sharks have passed since the onset of industrial fishing (and hence, the intense exploitation of the species), the low genetic diversity observed in Ruck (2016) and Camargo et al. (2016) likely reflect historical levels, rather than current levels that would reflect the species' significant population declines (Ruck 2016). Thus, we agree with the commenter that genetic bottlenecks may be a cause for concern in the foreseeable future, since a species with already relatively low genetic diversity undergoing significant levels of exploitation may experience increased risk in terms of reduced fitness, evolutionary adaptability, and potential extirpations (Camargo et al., 2016). In terms of monitoring, once a species is listed under the ESA, we are required to conduct 5-year reviews to determine whether there has been any change in the species' status since the final listing rule went into effect. At that time, we can assess whether any new genetic information has become available that would indicate whether the species' extinction risk has increased due to any population or genetic bottlenecks. Additionally, any interested person can petition us to change the species' status, at which time we would evaluate any new information submitted as part of the petition.

    Comments Outside the Scope of the Proposed Listing Determination

    We received numerous comments regarding actions that fall outside the scope of this rulemaking. Below are brief explanations to note the comments were received and explain why they are not considered relevant to the content of the proposed rule.

    Comment 15: We received multiple comments regarding the designation of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark in U.S. waters. One commenter urged NMFS to propose designated critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark in waters off the continental U.S., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii and the Pacific Trust Territories to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.

    Response: We appreciate the submission of these comments regarding critical habitat. NMFS is required to designate critical habitat at the time of final rule publication, unless we determine that critical habitat is undeterminable at that time. We discuss our determination that critical habitat is not currently determinable for the oceanic whitetip shark in the Critical Habitat section below.

    Comment 16: We received several comments related to ESA 4(d) rule making, which was discussed in the Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA section of the proposed rule. One commenter requested that NMFS not apply the ESA section 9 take prohibitions to licensed Hawaii-based commercial longline fishing vessels, as these prohibitions would not be necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species given that the Hawaii longline fisheries have a negligible impact on the oceanic whitetip shark relative to foreign industrialized fisheries. In contrast, another commenter requested that NMFS use its authority under ESA section 4(d) to extend the section 9(a) take prohibitions, particularly because “take” by fisheries was identified as a main threat to the oceanic whitetip shark in the status review and proposed rule, and thus take prohibitions would be necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.

    Response: The comments described above did not provide substantive information to help inform the final listing determination for the oceanic whitetip shark. For threatened species, the take prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA do not automatically apply, as they do for endangered species. Additionally, NMFS is not required to issue a 4(d) rule for threatened species in conjunction with a final ESA listing. We will do so only if we determine it is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Issuance of a 4(d) rule would be done in a separate rulemaking process that would include specific opportunities for public input. As such, the comments above are noted but not responded to further in this final rule.

    Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Rule

    We did not receive, nor did we find, data or references that presented substantial new information to change our proposed listing determination. We did, however, make several revisions to the status review report (Young et al., 2017) to incorporate, as appropriate, relevant information that we received in response to our request for public comments or identified ourselves. Specifically, we updated the status review to include information regarding fisheries data and regulations from two countries that border the eastern Pacific (Costa Rica and Panama), which largely supports our determination that population declines as a result of overutilization and inadequate regulations in this region are contributing to the species' threatened status globally. We also revised the discussion of U.S. regulatory mechanisms in the status review report to include relevant time/area and seasonal closures to longline fishing gear along the East Coast of the United States. In addition, we identified a couple of new publications with relevant information regarding the life history of the oceanic whitetip shark from the Western and Central Pacific and Indian Oceans (D'Alberto et al., 2017 and Varghese et al., 2016, respectively). Specifically, these publications provide new information regarding age, growth and maturity for the species, which we incorporated into the status review report. We also identified a new paper regarding the inadequacy of fisheries regulations in Brazil (Fiedler et al., 2017), which further supports our determination that overutilization and inadequate regulations are ongoing threats to the species in the South Atlantic. Finally, we revised the discussion of the essential fish habitat (EFH) designation for the oceanic whitetip shark in U.S. waters of the Northwest Atlantic, because NMFS amended the designation in this region in 2017. We thoroughly considered the additional information we received and gathered; however, the inclusion of this new information did not alter the outcome of our risk assessment of the species.

    Status Review

    We appointed a biologist in the Office of Protected Resources Endangered Species Conservation Division to undertake a scientific review of the life history and ecology, distribution, abundance, and threats to the oceanic whitetip shark. Next, we convened a team of biologists and shark experts (the ERA team) to conduct an extinction risk analysis for the species, using the information in the scientific review. The ERA team was comprised of a natural resource management specialist from NMFS Office of Protected Resources, a fishery management specialist from NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and four research fishery biologists from NMFS' Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, and Pacific Island Fisheries Science Centers. The ERA team had expertise in shark biology and ecology, population dynamics, highly migratory species management, and stock assessment science. The status review report presents the ERA team's professional judgment of the extinction risk facing the oceanic whitetip shark but makes no recommendation as to the listing status of the species. The final status review report of the oceanic whitetip shark (Young et al., 2017) compiles the best available information on the status of the species as required by the ESA and assesses the current and future extinction risk for the species, focusing primarily on threats related to the five statutory factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The status review report is available electronically at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/oceanic-whitetip-shark.html.

    The status review report was subjected to independent peer review as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The status review report was peer reviewed by five independent specialists selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in shark biology, conservation, and management, and specific knowledge of oceanic whitetip sharks. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status review as well as the findings made in the “Assessment of Extinction Risk” section of the report. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to finalizing the status review report.

    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited references, and peer review comments, and believe the status review report, upon which the proposed rule and this final rule are based, provides the best available scientific and commercial information on the oceanic whitetip shark. Much of the information discussed in the proposed rule and below on oceanic whitetip shark biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk is attributable to the status review report. However, we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our regulations regarding listing determinations, and our DPS policy in making this final listing determination.

    ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting the Oceanic Whitetip Shark

    As stated previously and as discussed in the proposed rule (81 FR 96304; December 29, 2016), we considered whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA is contributing to the extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark. Several commenters provided additional information related to threats, such as forms of overutilization, including bycatch-related fisheries mortality and the fin trade, as well as inadequate regulatory mechanisms. The information provided was consistent with or reinforced information in the status review report and proposed rule, and thus, did not change our conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions. Therefore, we incorporate and affirm herein all information, discussion, and conclusions regarding the factors affecting the oceanic whitetip shark from the final status review report (Young et al., 2017) and the proposed rule (81 FR 96304; December 29, 2016).

    Extinction Risk

    As discussed previously, the status review evaluated the demographic risks to the oceanic whitetip shark according to four categories—abundance and trends, population growth/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and genetic diversity. As a concluding step, after considering all of the available information regarding demographic and other threats to the species, we rated the species' extinction risk according to a qualitative scale (high, moderate, and low risk). Although we did update our status review to incorporate the most recent life history information for the oceanic whitetip from two additional studies regarding age, growth and age of maturity, none of the comments or information we received on the proposed rule changed the outcome of our extinction risk evaluation for the species. As such, our conclusions regarding extinction risk for the oceanic whitetip shark remains the same. Therefore, we incorporate and affirm herein all information, discussion, and conclusions on the extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark in the final status review report (Young et al., 2017) and proposed rule (81 FR 96304; December 29, 2016).

    Protective Efforts

    In addition to regulatory measures (e.g., fishing and finning regulations, sanctuary designations, etc.), we considered other efforts being made to protect the oceanic whitetip shark. We considered whether such protective efforts altered the conclusions of the extinction risk analysis for the species; however, none of the information we received on the proposed rule affected our conclusions regarding conservation efforts to protect the oceanic whitetip. Therefore, we incorporate and affirm herein all information, discussion, and conclusions on the extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip shark in the final status review report (Young et al., 2017) and proposed rule (81 FR 96304; December 29, 2016).

    Final Listing Determination

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the oceanic whitetip shark is not presently in danger of extinction but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. While the oceanic whitetip shark was historically one of the most abundant and ubiquitous shark species in warm tropical and sub-tropical seas around the world (Mather and Day 1954, Backus et al., 1956, Strasburg 1958), the best available scientific and commercial information suggests the species has experienced significant historical and ongoing abundance declines in all three ocean basins (i.e., globally) due to overutilization from fishing pressure and inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the species. Estimates of abundance decline range from 50-88 percent across the Atlantic Ocean (Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Southwest Atlantic; Baum and Meyers 2004, Cortés 2007, Driggers et al., 2011, Barretto et al., 2015, ICMBio 2014, Santana et al., 2004); 80-96 percent across the Pacific Ocean basin (Hall and Roman 2013, Rice and Harley 2012, Rice et al., 2015, Clark et al., 2012, Brodziak et al., 2013); and variable declines across the Indian Ocean, (IOTC 2015, Yokawa and Semba 2012, Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012, IOTC 2011, Anderson et al., 2011). Due to the species' preferred vertical and horizontal habitat in the upper-mixed layer of warm, tropical and sub-tropical waters, the oceanic whitetip shark is extremely susceptible to incidental capture in both longline and purse seine fisheries throughout its range (Rice et al., 2015; Cortes et al., 2012, Murua et al., 2012), and thus experiences substantial levels of bycatch-related fishing mortality from these fisheries. Additionally, the oceanic whitetip shark is a preferred species in the international fin market for its large, morphologically distinct fins (CITES 2013, Vannuccini 1999), which incentivizes the retention and/or finning of the species. Although there has been some decline in the shark fin trade in recent years (Dent and Clarke 2015), we anticipate ongoing threats of fishing pressure and related mortality to continue, as the species is still regularly caught as bycatch in global fisheries and incidents of illegal finning and trafficking of oceanic whitetip fins have occurred recently despite CITES protections (Young et al., 2017, AFCD unpublished data). The oceanic whitetip shark is rendered more vulnerable to fishing pressure due its life history characteristics, including relatively slow growth, late age of maturity, and low fecundity due to its presumed biennial reproductive cycle, which limit the species' capacity to recover. Further, the species' low genetic diversity in concert with steep global abundance declines and ongoing threats of overutilization may pose a viable risk to the species in the foreseeable future. Finally, despite the increasing number of regulations for the conservation of the species, which we acknowledge may help to slow population declines to some degree, we determined that existing regulatory mechanisms are largely inadequate for addressing the most important threat of overutilization throughout a large portion of the species' range.

    We conclude that the oceanic whitetip shark is not presently in danger of extinction for a number of reasons. First, the species is broadly distributed over a large geographic range and does not seem to have been extirpated in any region, even in areas where there is heavy harvest bycatch and utilization of the species' high-value fins. Given that local extirpations are often a typical precursor to range-wide extinction events, we consider this to be an indication (among others) that the species is not presently in danger of extinction. There also appears to be a potential for relative stability in population sizes 5 to10 years at the post-decline depressed state, as evidenced by the potential stabilization of two populations (e.g., NW Atlantic and Hawaii) at a diminished abundance, which suggests that this species is potentially capable of persisting at a reduced population size. Although these populations represent very small portions of the species' overall range, given that both of these populations are managed under strict fishing regulations in U.S. waters, we anticipate these stabilizing trends to continue in the near-term. We also conclude that the overall reduction of the fin trade and the marked increase in species-specific regulatory mechanisms in numerous fisheries throughout the species' range should help to reduce fisheries-related mortality and slow (but not necessarily halt) population declines to some degree, thus providing a temporal buffer in terms of the species' extinction risk. Given the foregoing reasons, we cannot conclude that the oceanic whitetip shark is presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial information, as summarized here, in our proposed rule (81 FR 64110; September 19, 2016), and in the final status review report (Young et al., 2017), and after consideration of protective efforts, we find that the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) is not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., approximately 30 years). As such, we find that this species meets the definition of a threatened species under the ESA and list it as such.

    Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and a requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536). For endangered species, protections also include prohibitions related to “take” and trade (16 U.S.C. 1538). Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). These prohibitions do not apply to species listed as threatened unless protective regulations are issued under section 4(d) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)), leaving it to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the ESA's prohibitions to the species. Section 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to a threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. Recognition of the species' imperiled status through listing may also promote conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

    Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/FWS regulations require Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that any actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) also requires Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat. Our section 7 regulations require the responsible Federal agency to initiate formal consultation if a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Examples of Federal actions that may affect the oceanic whitetip shark include, but are not limited to: Alternative energy projects, discharge of pollution from point sources, non-point source pollution, contaminated waste and plastic disposal, dredging, pile-driving, development of water quality standards, vessel traffic, military activities, and fisheries management practices.

    Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed if such areas are determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(a) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

    In our proposal to list the oceanic whitetip shark, we requested information on the identification of specific features and areas in U.S. waters that may meet the definition of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark (81 FR 96326; December 29, 2016). We have reviewed the comments provided and the best available scientific information. We conclude that critical habitat is not determinable at this time for the following reasons: (1) Sufficient information is not currently available to assess the impacts of designation; and (2) sufficient information is not currently available regarding the physical and biological features essential to conservation. We will continue to evaluate potential critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark, and we intend to consider critical habitat for this species in a separate action.

    ESA Section 9 Take Prohibitions

    Because we are listing the oceanic whitetip shark as threatened, the prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA will not automatically apply to this species. As described below, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a) prohibitions to threatened species, and authorizes us to issue regulations that are deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.

    Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA

    As stated above, NMFS has flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the needs of and threats to the species. Section 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. We are not proposing such regulations at this time, but may consider potential protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for the oceanic whitetip in a future rulemaking.

    Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a minimum peer review standard. We solicited peer review comments on the draft status review report from five scientists with expertise on sharks in general and specific knowledge regarding the oceanic whitetip in particular. We received and reviewed comments from these scientists, and, prior to publication of the proposed rule, their comments were incorporated into the draft status review report (Young et al., 2016), which was then made available for public comment. Peer reviewer comments on the status review are available at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID345.html.

    References

    A complete list of the references used is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    Information Solicited

    We request interested persons to submit relevant information related to the identification of critical habitat and essential physical or biological features for this species, as well as economic or other relevant impacts of designation of critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark. Details about the types of information we are seeking can be found in the proposed rule (81 FR 96327; December 29, 2016). We solicit information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party as soon as possible but no later than April 2, 2018 (see ADDRESSES).

    Classification National Environmental Policy Act

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is not required.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation.

    Dated: January 24, 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 223 is amended as follows:

    PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9).

    2. In § 223.102, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for “Shark, oceanic whitetip” under “Fishes” in alphabetical order, by common name, to read as follows:
    § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

    (e) * * *

    Species 1 Common name Scientific name Description of
  • listed entity
  • Citation(s) for listing
  • determination(s)
  • Critical
  • habitat
  • ESA rules
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Fishes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Shark, oceanic whitetip Carcharhinuss longimanus Entire species 83 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins], January 30, 2018. NA NA *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
    [FR Doc. 2018-01682 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 170828822-70999-02] RIN 0648-XF669 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2018 and Projected 2019 Scup Specifications and Announcement of Final 2018 Summer Flounder and Black Sea Bass Specifications; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 22, 2017, NMFS issued final specifications for scup, summer flounder, and black sea bass for 2018. That document inadvertently failed to apply a pound-for-pound overage deduction to the 2018 scup summer period quota due to overages incurred in 2017. Additionally, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts received a late-season summer flounder transfer applicable to the 2017 fishing year that adjusts its final 2018 state summer flounder quota. This document corrects the final 2018 specifications and informs the public of these adjustments.

    DATES:

    Effective January 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Need for Correction

    The final 2018 specifcations for scup, summer flounder, and black sea bass published on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60682). Following its publication, we became aware of two adjustments that need to be made that pertain to the scup and summer flounder commercial fishery quotas.

    Adjustment to the Scup Summer Period Quota

    Although the 2017 scup annual catch limit (ACL) was not exceeded, landings during the summer commercial quota period exceeded the 2017 summer period quota by 46,753 lb (21,206 kg). The regulations at § 648.123(a)(2)(ii) require any landings in excess of the summer period quota be deducted, pound for pound, from the summer period quota for the following year. As a result, this action adjusts the final 2018 scup summer period quota from 9,340,986 lb (4,237 mt) to 9,294,233 lb (4,216 mt) to account for the 2017 landings overage. Because the overall 2017 ACL was not exceeded, this action does not adjust the final 2018 ACL published on December 22, 2017.

    Adjustment to the 2018 Summer Flounder Quota for Massachusetts

    This action corrects the state quota allocated to Massachusetts by accounting for a transfer received in late December 2017. As a result of this transfer, Massachusetts received an additional 3,585 lb (1,626 kg) applied towards its 2017 quota. This results in an overage reduction from 37,816 lb (17,153 kg) to 34,231 lb (15,527 kg), which results in a revised 2018 quota of 404,742 lb (183,588 kg).

    Corrections

    On page 60683 of the Federal Register published on December 22, 2017, Table 2 is corrected to read as follows:

    Table 2—Commercial Scup Quota Allocations for 2018 by Quota Period Quota period 2018 Initial quota Percent share lb mt Winter I 45.11 10,820,000 4,908 Summer 38.95 9,294,233 4,216 Winter II 15.94 3,822,816 1,734 Total 100.0 23,937,049 10,858 Note: Metric tons are as converted from pounds and may not necessarily total due to rounding.

    Additionally, on page 60684, Table 6 is corrected to read as follows:

    Table 6—Final State-by-State Commercial Summer Flounder Quotas for 2018 State FMP
  • percent
  • share
  • 2018 Initial quota lb kg 2018 Adjusted quota
  • (ACL overage)
  • lb kg Overages through October 31, 2017 lb kg Final adjusted 2018 quota, less overages lb kg
    Maine 0.04756 3,152 1,430 3,061 1,388 0 0 3,061 1,388 New Hampshire 0.00046 30 14 30 13 0 0 30 13 Massachusetts 6.82046 451,998 205,023 438,973 199,115 34,231 15,527 404,742 183,588 Rhode Island 15.68298 1,039,326 471,430 1,009,375 457,845 13,002 5,898 996,373 451,947 Connecticut 2.25708 149,579 67,848 145,268 65,893 0 0 145,268 65,893 New York 7.64699 506,773 229,868 492,169 223,244 0 0 492,169 223,244 New Jersey 16.72499 1,108,381 502,753 1,076,440 488,265 0 0 1,076,440 488,265 Delaware 0.01779 1,179 535 1,145 519 49,638 22,515 −48,493 −21,996 Maryland 2.0391 135,133 61,295 131,239 59,529 0 0 131,239 59,529 Virginia 21.31676 1,412,682 640,782 1,371,972 622,316 0 0 1,371,972 622,316 North Carolina 27.44584 1,818,862 825,022 1,766,447 801,247 0 0 1,766,447 801,247 Total 100 6,627,096 3,006,000 6,436,120 2,919,375 6,387,743 2,897,431 Notes: Kilograms are as converted from pounds and may not necessarily add due to rounding. Total quota is the sum for all states with an allocation. A state with a negative number has a 2018 allocation of zero (0). Total adjusted 2018 quota, less overages, does not include negative allocations (i.e., Delaware's overage).
    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01672 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 20 Tuesday, January 30, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1116; Product Identifier 2016-NE-32-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-20-06, which applies to certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) AS907-1-1A turbofan engines. AD 2017-20-06 requires a one-time inspection of the second stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, the replacement of the blades with a part eligible for installation. Since we issued AD 2017-20-06, we determined the need to clarify the Applicability and Compliance sections of AD 2017-20-06. This proposed AD would continue to require a one-time inspection of the LPT2 blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, the replacement of the blades with a part eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    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-2017-1116; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1116; Product Identifier 2016-NE-32-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued AD 2017-20-06, Amendment 39-19063 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017), (“AD 2017-20-06”), for certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) AS907-1-1A turbofan engines. AD 2017-20-06 requires a one-time inspection of the LPT2 blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, the replacement of the blades with a part eligible for installation. AD 2017-20-06 resulted from reports of loss of power due to failure of the LPT2 blade. We issued AD 2017-20-06 to prevent failure of the LPT2 blades caused by excessive blade tip shroud wear, failure of one or more new production engines with the same time-in-service, and loss of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2017-20-06 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2017-20-06, we determined the need to clarify the Applicability and Compliance sections of that AD. We received comments from operators and maintenance facilities indicating that these sections of the AD could have been misinterpreted to mean that the borescope inspections required by this AD applied to all Honeywell AS907-1-1A turbofan engines with LPT2 rotor blades, part number (P/N) 3035602-1, installed. We revised these sections to clarify that only Honeywell AS907-1-1A turbofan engines with LPT2 rotor blades, P/N 3035602-1, installed, with more than 8,000 hours since new on the effective date of this AD are affected.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017. This SB describes procedures for inspecting the LPT2 blades. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 0, dated December 12, 2016, which also describes procedures for inspecting the LPT2 blades. We also reviewed the Honeywell Light Maintenance Manual, AS907-1-1A, 72-00-00, Section 72-05-12, dated May 25, 2016, and Section 72-55-03, dated September 27, 2011, which provide additional guidance for performing borescope inspections.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2017-20-06 to perform a one-time inspection of affected LPT2 blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, replace the blades with a part eligible for installation. This proposed AD would clarify that these requirements apply only to Honeywell AS907-1-1A turbofan engines with LPT2 rotor blades, P/N 3035602-1, installed, with more than 8,000 hours since new on the effective date of this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 40 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Borescope inspection 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 $0 $850 $34,000 Report results of inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 3,400

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We estimate that 40 engines will need this replacement.

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of the LPT2 blade set 50 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,250 $50,000 $54,250
    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-20-06, Amendment 39-19063 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017), and adding the following new AD: Honeywell International Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-1116; Product Identifier 2016-NE-32-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-20-06, Amendment 39-19063 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) AS907-1-1A turbofan engines with second stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) rotor blades, part number 3035602-1, installed, that have more than 8,000 hours since new on the effective date of this AD.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of loss of power due to failure of the LPT2 blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT2 blades. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 200 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD, do the following:

    (1) Perform a one-time borescope inspection for wear of the Z gap contact area at the blade tip shroud for each of the 62 LPT2 rotor blades. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 3.B.(1), of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017, to do the inspection.

    (2) If the measured wear and/or fretting of any Z gap contact area is greater than 0.005 inch, replace the LPT2 rotor assembly with a part eligible for installation before further flight.

    (3) Using a borescope, make a clear digital image of the Z gap contact area at the blade tip shroud of the 62 LPT2 rotor blades, and do the following:

    (i) Identify the three Z gap contact areas with the greatest amount of wear and/or fretting.

    (ii) Record the blade position on the LPT2 rotor assembly and the measured wear of the three Z gap contact areas with the greatest amount of wear and/or fretting.

    (iii) Send the results to Honeywell at [email protected] within 30 days after completing these actions.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD, if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD using Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 0, dated December 12, 2016.

    (i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01704 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1035] RIN 1625-AA00 Special Local Regulation; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a recurring special local regulation for navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean, east of Miami Beach, FL beginning at Government Cut Inlet, for the Miami Beach Air and Sea Show. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of the general public, spectators, vessels, and marine environment from potential hazards during aerobatic maneuvers by high-speed, low-flying airplanes and high speed vessels performing during the Miami Beach Air and Sea Show. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov using docket number USCG-2017-1035 in the “Search” feature. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The city of Miami Beach has informed the Coast Guard it will be hosting the Miami Beach Air and Sea Show annually over one weekend (Saturday and Sunday) during the month of May. The special local regulation proposed for this event would cover all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Miami Beach, FL beginning at Government Cut Inlet and continuing north approximately two miles. The regulated area is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards during aerobatic maneuvers by high speed, low flying airplanes and high speed vessels during the air show. Over the years, there have been unfortunate instances of aircraft mishaps during performances at various air shows around the world. Occasionally, these incidents result in a wide area of scattered debris in the water that can damage property or cause significant injury or death to the public observing the air shows. The Captain of the Port Miami has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect the general public from hazards associated with aerial flight demonstrations.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule would establish a special local regulation over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Miami Beach, FL beginning at Government Cut Inlet and continuing north approximately two miles. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of the aerial flight demonstrations and high speed boat races. Non participant vessels or persons will not be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide a notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you believe your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If you believe this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated area that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting the regulated area during the air and sea show. Normally such actions are 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 will be available once we receive public comment for this rule and will be located in the docket indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 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 §  100.725 to read as follows:
    §  100.725 Special Local Regulation: Miami Beach Air and Sea Show; Atlantic Ocean, Miami Beach, FL.

    (a) Location: The following area is a regulated area located on the Atlantic Ocean in Miami Beach, FL. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 25°47′52″ N, 080°6′55″ W; thence southwest to Point 2 in position 25°45′40″ N, 080° 7′16″ W; thence northwest to Point 3 in position 25°45′50″ N, 080°07′49″ W; thence north to Point 4 in position 25°47′56″ N,080°07′30″ W; thence back to the origin at Point 1. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983. All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area.

    (b) Definitions: (1) The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, State, and Local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (2) The term “Patrol Commander” means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the respective Coast Guard Sector Commander to enforce these regulations.

    (3) The term “spectators” means all persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.

    (c) Regulations: (1) All non-participant vessels or persons are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at (305) 535-4472 or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will notify the public in advance of the event contained in these regulations by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register in advance of the date of the event. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16, or provide notice by on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period: This rule will be enforced annually on a weekend (Saturday and Sunday) during the month of May.

    Dated: January 16, 2018. M.M. Dean, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01742 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-1095] RIN 1625—AA11; 1625-AA00 Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the navigational and operational restrictions of the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) near Romeoville, Illinois and remove the redundant Safety Zone currently in place. The purpose of this amendment is to improve safety and clarify regulations for vessels transiting the navigable waters located adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance Species electric dispersal barrier system (EDBS).

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1095 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2131, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSSC Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal DHS Department of Homeland Security EDBS Electric Dispersal Barrier System E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law RNA Regulated Navigation Area §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to eliminate a redundant safety zone and remove several requirements from a Regulated Navigation Area that are no longer necessary. There currently exists, in 33 CFR 165.923, certain navigational, environmental, and operational restrictions on all vessels transiting the navigable waters located adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance Species electric dispersal fish barrier. 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1) establishes a safety zone in the CSSC from mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7. Additionally, 33 CFR 165.923(b)(1) establishes a regulated navigation area from mile marker 295.5 to mile marker 297.2. There also exists, in 33 CFR 165.930, a safety zone from mile marker 286.0 to mile marker 333.3 that includes the totality of the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1), rendering it redundant.

    In 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center completed a marine safety risk assessment for the waters of the CSSC in the vicinity of the Aquatic Nuisance Species EDBS near Romeoville, Illinois. The overarching goal of the risk assessment was to determine the adequacy of present risk mitigation strategies and, if necessary, recommend alternatives to the present strategies. The report generated at the conclusion of the risk assessment noted apparent confusion among waterway users regarding the boundaries and requirements for the safety zone and RNA outlined in 33 CFR 165.923. The report also identified certain requirements still in effect which had basis in the existing Rule that have since changed over the period of the rule and may longer currently apply. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addresses recommended amendments to the regulations based on the report's conclusions and recommendations.

    The proposed amendments are intended to improve safety, reduce confusion and eliminate unnecessary burden to vessels transiting the safety zone and RNA of the CSSC in the vicinity of the EDBS near Romeoville, Illinois. The Coast Guard is issuing this proposed rule under 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The purpose of safety zone delineated in § 165.923(a)(1) is to inhibit the potential transfer of live Silver or Asian carp, viable eggs or gametes into the waterway north of the electric barrier. To serve this purpose, the safety zone requirements outlined in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2) restrict vessels transiting with non-potable water on board if they intend to release that water in any form within or on the other side of the safety zone. A larger safety zone, described at 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2), also encompasses this same area. That safety zone, however, does not contain regulations prohibiting vessels from transiting the zone if they have any non-potable water onboard and intent to release that water within or beyond the safety zone.

    The Coast Guard also proposes to eliminate the CSSC safety zone outlined in 33 CFR 165.923(a). This revision would eliminate redundancy currently existing in regulations because the CSSC is already regulated by the larger safety zone delineated in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2). The requirements in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2) for the transit of non-potable water would be preserved, but incorporated into the CSSC's RNA regulations in what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2). Therefore, 33 CFR 165.923(b) will become 33 CFR 165.923(a) with the elimination of the safety zone. The following paragraphs describe additional changes that will be made to the RNA regulations.

    The Coast Guard proposes to remove the RNA's bow boat requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C). The RNA currently requires that all up-bound and down-bound tows that consist of barges carrying flammable liquid cargoes (Grade A through C, flashpoint below 140 degrees Fahrenheit, or heated to within 15 degrees Fahrenheit of flash point) engage the services of a bow boat at all times until the entire tow is clear of the RNA. The original bow boat requirement intended to reduce the possibility of a spark-induced event due to allision between a barge carrying flammable liquid cargo and barges at the Will County Generating Station Coal Wharf (RDB MM 296.0) while the facility conducted coal loading and barge fleeting. At times barge fleets were three-wide (approximately 105 feet), extending into the 160-wide cut, less than 500 feet downstream of Barrier II-A. Since barge loading and fleeting ceased in September 2012, the basis for this requirement no longer exists.

    The Coast Guard also proposes to modify the requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) that commercial tows be made up with only wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow in order to prevent arcing while transiting the electric barrier and to prevent high contact potentials between vessels in the tow. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that adequate means of securing a tow configuration are not exclusive to the use of wire rope and towboats frequently use high-tensile strength aramid, high-modulus polyethylene, or composite fiber ropes (“soft-lines”) as wing-wires or face-wires, and occasionally as barge lashings. Government observers have seen towboats use a single, wire-rope from barge winch to towboat h-bitt, thus providing adequate electrical connectivity, if sufficiently taut, and contacting bare-metal surfaces. The Coast Guard thus proposes to continue to require that commercial tows transiting the RNA ensure the maintenance of electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow through use of wire rope, but allow use of soft lines to be used in addition to secure a tow. To account for use of soft-lines, the Coast Guard proposes to eliminate the requirement that a tow exclusively use wire rope, by removing the words “with only” from the subsection and allowing an appropriate alternative.

    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to add a requirement to the RNA regulations that all vessels transit the RNA at a “no-wake” speed. Currently, the RNA does not provide a maximum safe speed for vessels transiting the RNA. Throughout the course of the marine risk assessment, the project team ascertained that the largest marine safety risk is electric shock to a person in the water. Video recording and shore-observer accounts indicate that many, smaller recreational vessels transit the EDBS at a speed that generates significant wake. Also, light-boat transits drag a wake that causes surging of barges moored to the loading facility just north of the pipeline arch. A no-wake zone would reduce this risk not only to persons aboard vessels, but also to persons working ashore alongside the RNA.

    The aforementioned changes to the RNA regulations would require a slight reordering of what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(A)-(K). With the removal of the safety zone, these regulations would be found in 33 CFR 165.923(a). The removal of the bow boat requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C) would cause the other requirements to move up a letter, becoming the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(C)-(J). The “no wake” requirement would then become the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(K) and the requirements for the transit of non-potable water would be added in a new section, 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(L).

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of the statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    E.O. 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771. As this proposed rule is anticipated to not be a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).

    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because this is an updated version with minor changes to an already existing rule. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    The proposed revision of the safety zone and RNA will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed revision imposes minor additional requirements on industry; and provides clarity to preexisting requirements by removing redundancies. The proposed rule, by removing the bow boat requirement due the ceased barge loading and fleeting operations, would in turn reduce regulated costs.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under DHS Management 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves revisions of the safety zone and RNA that provide clarity to preexisting requirements. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L60 pertains to establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Revise § 165.923 to read as follows:
    § 165.923 Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

    (a) Regulated Navigation Area. (1) The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA): All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL located between mile marker 295.5 and mile marker 297.2.

    (2) Regulations. (i) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.

    (ii) Vessels that comply with the following restrictions are permitted to transit the RNA:

    (A) Vessels must be greater than 20 feet in length.

    (B) Vessels must not be a personal or human powered watercraft (i.e., jet skis, waver runners, kayaks, row boats, etc.).

    (C) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the RNA and must make a SECURITÉ call when approaching the RNA to announce intentions and work out passing arrangements.

    (D) Commercial tows transiting the RNA must use wire rope or appropriate alternatives to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow.

    (E) All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the RNA.

    (F) Vessels may enter the RNA for the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. All vessels and persons are prohibited from dredging, laying cable, dragging, fishing, conducting salvage operations, or any other activity, which could disturb the bottom of the RNA.

    (G) Except for law enforcement and emergency response personnel, all personnel on vessels transiting the RNA should remain inside the cabin, or as inboard as practicable. If personnel must be on open decks, they must wear a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device.

    (H) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending banks of the RNA.

    (I) Towboats may not make or break tows if any portion of the towboat or tow is located in the RNA.

    (J) Persons onboard any vessel transiting the RNA in accordance with this rule or otherwise are advised they do so at their own risk.

    (K) All vessels transiting the RNA are required to transit at a no wake speed but still maintain bare steerageway.

    (L) Non-potable water. (i) All vessels are prohibited from transiting the restricted navigation area with any non-potable water on board if they intend to release that water in any form within, or on the other side of the restricted navigation area. Non-potable water includes, but is not limited to, any water taken on board to control or maintain trim, draft, stability, or stresses of the vessel. Likewise, it includes any water taken on board due to free communication between the hull of the vessel and exterior water. Potable water is water treated and stored aboard the vessel that is suitable for human consumption.

    (ii) Vessels with non-potable water on board are permitted to transit the restricted navigation area if they have taken steps to prevent the release, in any form, of that water in or on the other side of the restricted navigation area. Alternatively, vessels with non-potable water on board are permitted to transit the restricted navigation area if they have plans to dispose of the water in a biologically sound manner.

    (iii) Vessels with non-potable water aboard that intend to discharge on the other side of the restricted navigation area must contact the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives prior to transit and obtain permission to transit and discharge. Examples of discharges that may be approved include plans to dispose of the water in a biologically sound manner or demonstrate through testing that the non-potable water does not contain potential live Silver or Asian carp, viable eggs, or gametes.

    (iv) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone by vessels with non-potable water on board is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander, his or her designated representatives, or an on-scene representative.

    (v) The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, may further designate an “on-scene” representative. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF-FM radio Channel 16 or through the Coast Guard Lake Michigan Command Center at (414) 747-7182.

    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    Designated representative means the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago.

    On-scene representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, will be aboard a Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or will be onshore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer.

    Vessel means every description of watercraft of other artificial contrivance used, or capable or being used, as a means of transportation on water. This definition includes, but is not limited to, barges.

    (c) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this section and any additional instructions or orders of the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives. Any person on board any vessel transiting this RNA in accordance with this rule or otherwise does so at his or her own risk.

    (d) Waiver. For any vessel, the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of vessel and mariner safety.

    Dated: January 11, 2018. J.M. Nunan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01745 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 171205999-8043-01] RIN 0648-BH45 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to approve changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) and codified regulations for the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC or Commission) regulatory Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California (Area 2A). In addition, NMFS proposes to implement the portions of the Plan and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC. These measures include the sport fishery allocations and management measures for Area 2A. These actions are intended to conserve Pacific halibut, provide angler opportunity where available, and minimize bycatch of overfished groundfish species.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed changes to the Plan and the codified regulations, and on the proposed domestic Area 2A Pacific halibut management measures, must be received by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0157, by either of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0157, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Attn: Kathryn Blair.

    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public record and NMFS will post for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender is publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Docket: This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at http://www.access.thefederalregister.org/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/pacific_halibut_management.html and at the Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org. Other comments received may be accessed through Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Blair, phone: 206-526-6140, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act) of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773-773k, gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) general responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada (Halibut Convention) (16 U.S.C. 773c). It requires the Secretary to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and the Halibut Act. Section 773c of the Halibut Act also authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC to govern the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters.

    Each year between 1988 and 1995, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed and NMFS implemented a catch sharing plan in accordance with the Halibut Act to allocate the total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian and non-Indian harvesters and among non-Indian commercial and sport fisheries in Area 2A. In 1995, NMFS implemented the Pacific Council-recommended long-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). Every year since then, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries.

    For 2018, the Council has recommended minor modifications to sport fisheries to better match the needs of the fishery, and changes to incidental retention in the sablefish fishery. This proposed rule contains some dates for the sport fisheries based on the 2018 Plan as recommended by the Council; however, affected states are holding public meetings to gather input on some final season dates that will be set after the final 2A TAC is determined by the IPHC at its annual meeting January 22-26, 2018. The states will submit final season dates to NMFS after stakeholders have had the availability to comment. These state-determined season dates are included in the final rule because recreational halibut fishing takes place in state and federal waters.

    Incidental Halibut Retention in the Sablefish Primary Fishery North of Pt. Chehalis, WA

    The Plan provides that incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, WA, will be allowed when the Washington recreational TAC is 224,110 (101.7 mt) or greater, provided that a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.5 mt) is available. Because the IPHC has not yet set the 2018 Area 2A TAC, it is unclear at this point whether this incidental retention will be allowed in 2018. If it is, the Council will recommend landing restrictions at its March 2018 meeting. Following this meeting, NMFS will publish the restrictions in the Federal Register.

    Opportunity for Public Comment

    Through this proposed rule, NMFS requests public comments on the Pacific Council's recommended modifications to the Plan and the resulting proposed domestic fishing regulations by March 1, 2018. The States of Oregon and California will conduct public workshops in February to obtain input on the sport season dates. The State of Washington has already determined season dates following input from the public. Following the proposed rule comment period, NMFS will review public comments and comments from the states, and issue a final rule. Either that final rule or an additional rule will include the IPHC regulations and regulations for the West Coast and Alaska.

    Proposed Changes to the Plan

    Each year, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the tribes with treaty fishing rights for halibut consider whether to pursue changes to the Plan to meet the needs of the fishery. In determining whether changes are needed, the state agencies hold public meetings prior to the Council's annual September meeting. Subsequently, they recommend changes to the Council at its September meeting. In 2017, fishery managers from all three state agencies held public meetings on the Plan prior to the Council's September meeting. At the September 2017 Council meeting, WDFW and ODFW proposed changes to the Plan. NMFS, the tribes, and CDFW did not recommend changes to the Plan or regulations. The Council voted to solicit public input on all of the changes recommended by the state agencies, a few of which were presented in the form of alternatives. WDFW and ODFW subsequently held public workshops on the recommended changes.

    At its November 14-20, 2017, meeting the Council considered the results of state-sponsored workshops on the recommended changes to the Plan, along with public input provided at the 2017 September and November Council meetings, and made its final recommendations for modifications to the Plan. NMFS proposes to approve all of the Council's recommended changes to the Plan as further discussed below.

    1. In section (e)(3), Incidental catch in the sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis, modify the sablefish allocation from 70,000 pounds to 50,000 when Area 2A total allowable catch (TAC) is less than 1.5 million pounds. The goal of this change is to limit the amount of unused quota in the incidental sablefish fishery while providing more opportunity to the Washington recreational sector. Remove the requirement that the Area 2A TAC be at least 900,000 pounds in order for incidental catch in the sablefish fishery to be allowed, as this requirement is inconsistent with the current allocation structure in the Plan.

    2. In sections (f)(1)(i-iii), Washington sport fisheries, modify the language used in setting open days, specifically: “seasons will open in early May and may be open up to two days per week and may include one weekday and one weekend day. Season structure may include periodic closures to assess the remaining quota for the subarea.” This change provides flexibility in setting open fishing days.

    3. In section (f)(1)(iv), Columbia River subarea, modify the open days to Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, to allow for the season to extend further into the summer.

    These changes are explained in more detail in materials submitted to the Council at its September and November meetings, available at https://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/past-meetings/. NMFS proposes to approve the Council's recommendations and to implement the changes described above. A version of the Plan including these changes can be found at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/pacific_halibut_management.html.

    Proposed Changes to the Regulations

    NMFS proposes to make the following change to its codified regulations to the halibut fishery: in §  300.63, at the description of the allocation structure of the incidental halibut catch in the sablefish primary fishery, paragraph (b)(3), remove the 900,000 lb Area 2A TAC threshold. Changes to the allocation structure in the Catch Sharing Plan have made this threshold inaccurate, and the sablefish allocation is based solely on a Washington recreational TAC of 214,110 lbs (97.1 mt) or greater. This change to the regulations is consistent with the proposed change to the Plan described above.

    Subarea Allocations

    Prior to 2013, NMFS used the total allowable catch (TAC) recommended by IPHC staff at the IPHC's interim meeting to calculate the Area 2A subarea allocations in its proposed rule. Beginning in 2013, the IPHC staff discontinued its prior practice of making a single catch limit recommendation at the interim meeting. Instead, the IPHC staff presented a range of total constant exploitation yield (TCEY) and fishery constant exploitation yield (FCEY) amounts. The goal of shifting from a single point estimate to a range, as stated by the IPHC, is to provide a more “transparent delineation between scientific results and management/policy decision, ultimately enabling a better understanding of the risks associated with different fishery harvest options.” The TCEY is a biologically-determined level for total removals from each regulatory area calculated by applying a fixed harvest rate to the estimate of exploitable biomass in that area, determined from the annual stock assessment. The TCEY is higher than the TAC, as the TCEY includes amounts of halibut taken as bycatch in the groundfish fishery and wastage.

    At its interim meeting, the IPHC presented a decision table with 13 alternative harvest strategies and resulting TCEYs. This is a greater number of alternatives on a finer scale than has been presented in previous years, thus for purposes of informing the public's consideration of this proposed rule, we describe the ends of the range under consideration and a mid-point based on historic harvest policy. The coast-wide TCEYs presented at the interim meeting range from 10 to 60 million pounds, with a finer grid presented between 20 and 40 million pounds, and a reference spawning potential ratio (SPR) value of 46% that would translate into a coast-wide TCEY of 31 million pounds. The reference value is consistent with the current harvest policy and, historically, IPHC staff advice.

    The purpose of the following discussion is to inform the public's consideration of this proposed rule. However, the IPHC may choose an Area 2A TCEY that is different from any of the numbers discussed here, and is outside the range considered at its November 2017 interim meeting. The determination of the TCEY level is not prescribed in regulation, rather the commissioners make TCEY decisions based on the scientific and stock assessment information combined with input from advisory bodies and the public.

    We assume for purpose of this discussion that the Commission will use the 1.9 percent TCEY distribution it used in 2017 to determine the amount of the 2018 coastwide TCEY for Area 2A, however, the Commission may depart from this practice. If the Commission were to adopt the SPR harvest rate reference value corresponding to a coast-wide TCEY of 31 million pounds, the 2018 Area 2A TCEY would be 0.59 million pounds following this assumption. Final adopted area allocations may be greater or less than reference values presented at interim meetings. For comparison, the 2017 Area 2A Reference SPR (46%) value put forth at the interim meeting resulted in an Area 2A TCEY of 0.96 million pounds, while the final value (SPR of 40%) adopted at the IPHC annual meeting resulted in an Area 2A TCEY of 1.47 million pounds. At the two ends of the range of TCEYs presented to the Commission at its interim meeting, a 2018 coast-wide TCEY of 10 or 20 million pounds would result in an Area 2A TCEY of 0.19 or 0.38 million pounds, respectively, while a TCEY of 40 or 60 million pounds would result in an Area 2A TCEY of 0.76 or 1.14 million pounds, respectively, based on preliminary estimates from the 2017 stock assessment, and past policies and approaches.

    Proposed 2018 Sport Fishery Management Measures

    NMFS also proposes sport fishery management measures, including season dates and bag limits that are necessary to implement the Plan in 2018. The annual domestic management measures are published each year through a final rule. For the 2017 fishing season, the final rule for the commercial fisheries was published on March 7, 2017 (82 FR 12730) along with the IPHC regulations, and the final rule for Area 2A sport fisheries was published on April 20, 2017 (82 FR 18581). The section numbers below correspond to sections in the March 7 final rule. Where season dates are not indicated, those dates will be provided in the final rule, following consideration of the 2018 TAC and consultation with the states and consideration of public comment. Where subarea allocations are not indicated, that information will be added once the Area 2A TAC is determined and quota distributed according to the Plan. The Plan is published in the Federal Register but is not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    In section 26 of the annual domestic management measures, “Sport Fishing for Halibut” paragraph (8) is proposed to read as follows:

    (8) * * *

    (a) The quota for the area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N lat., 124°23.70′ W long. north to 48°24.10′ N lat., 124°23.70′ W long., is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) The fishing seasons are:

    (A) Depending on available quota, fishing is open May 11, 13, 25, and 27; June 7, 9, 16, 21, 23, 28, and 30, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

    (b) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (2)(a) of section 26 and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N lat.) (North Coast subarea), is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) The fishing seasons are:

    (A) Depending on available quota, fishing is open May 11, 13, 25, and 27; June 7, 9, 16, 21, 23, 28, and 30, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

    (iii) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing with recreational gear in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.70(a).

    (c) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N lat.), and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N lat.) (South Coast subarea), is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) This subarea is divided between the all-waters fishery (the Washington South coast primary fishery), and the incidental nearshore fishery in the area from 47°31.70′ N lat. south to 46°58.00′ N lat. and east of a boundary line approximating the 30 fm depth contour. This area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated as described by the following coordinates (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area):

    (1) 47°31.70′ N lat, 124°37.03′ W long;

    (2) 47°25.67′ N lat, 124°34.79′ W long;

    (3) 47°12.82′ N lat, 124°29.12′ W long;

    (4) 46°58.00′ N lat, 124°24.24′ W long.

    The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: (subarea allocations for the primary and nearshore fisheries will be inserted when final rule publishes). Depending on available quota, the primary fishery season dates are May 11, 13, 25, and 27; June 7, 9, 16, 21, 23, 28, and 30, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline. The fishing season in the nearshore area commences the Saturday subsequent to the closure of the primary fishery, and continues 7 days per week until (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is closed by the Commission or September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred in-season to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

    (iii) Seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30-fm depth contour and during days open to the primary fishery, lingcod may be taken, retained and possessed when allowed by groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.360, subpart G.

    (iv) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA and/or Westport Offshore YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA are areas off the southern Washington coast established to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(d). The Westport Offshore YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(e).

    (d) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N lat.), and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N lat.) (Columbia River subarea), is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) This subarea is divided into an all-depth fishery and a nearshore fishery. The nearshore fishery is allocated 500 pounds of the subarea allocation. The nearshore fishery extends from Leadbetter Point (46°38.17′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long.) to the Columbia River (46°16.00′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long.) by connecting the following coordinates in Washington 46°38.17′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long. 46°16.00′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long and connecting to the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in Oregon. The nearshore fishery opens May 7, and continues on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday each week until the nearshore allocation is taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier. The all-depth fishing season commences on May 3, and continues on Thursday, Friday and Sunday each week until (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

    (iii) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, flatfish species, and lingcod caught north of the Washington-Oregon border during the month of May, when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, during days open to the all-depth fishery only.

    (iv) Taking, retaining, possessing, or landing halibut on groundfish trips is only allowed in the nearshore area on days not open to all-depth Pacific halibut fisheries.

    (e) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N lat.) (Oregon Central Coast subarea), is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) The fishing seasons are:

    (A) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences June 1, and continues 7 days a week, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery of (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes), or any in-season revised subquota, is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N lat. and 42°40.50′ N lat. is defined at § 660.71(k).

    (B) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open (season dates will be inserted when final rule is published). The allocation to the all-depth fishery is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes). If sufficient unharvested quota remains for additional fishing days, the season will re-open. Notice of the re-opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the re-opening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

    (C) If sufficient unharvested quota remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open (season dates will be inserted when final rule is published) and will continue until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, OR, are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. No halibut fishing will be allowed in the summer season fishery unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. Additional fishing days may be opened if sufficient quota remains after the last day of the first scheduled open period. If, after this date, an amount greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning (the first back up date will be inserted when final rule publishes) and ending when there is insufficient quota remaining, whichever is earlier. If after September 1, an amount greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Friday and Saturday, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning September 7 and 8, and ending October 31. After September 1, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.

    (iii) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing when the groundfish fishery is restricted by depth, no groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species, when allowed by groundfish regulations, if halibut are onboard the vessel. During days open to all-depth halibut fishing when the groundfish fishery is open to all depths, any groundfish species permitted under the groundfish regulations may be retained, possessed or landed if halibut are on aboard the vessel. During days open to nearshore halibut fishing, flatfish species may be taken and retained seaward of the seasonal groundfish depths restrictions, if halibut are on board the vessel.

    (iv) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.

    (v) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not possess any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined at § 660.70(f).

    (f) The quota for landings into ports in the area south of Humbug Mountain, OR (42° 40.50′ N lat.) to the Oregon/California Border (42° 00.00′ N lat.) (Southern Oregon subarea) is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 7 days per week until the subquota is taken, or October 31, whichever is earlier.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut per person with no size limit.

    (iii) No Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species, in areas closed to groundfish, if halibut are on board the vessel.

    (g) The quota for landings into ports south of the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N lat.) and along the California coast is (subarea allocations will be inserted when final rule publishes).

    (i) The fishing season will be open (season dates will be inserted when final rule is published), or until the subarea quota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce any closure by the Commission on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

    (ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

    Classification

    Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the IPHC, the Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Secretary. Section 5 of the Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) provides the Secretary with the general responsibility to carry out the Halibut Convention between Canada and the United States for the management of Pacific halibut, including the authority to adopt regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and Halibut Act. This proposed rule is consistent with the Secretary's authority under the Halibut Act.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. For any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to prepare, and make available for public comment, both an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA and FRFA), unless the agency can certify that the proposed and/or final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” These analyses describe the impact on small businesses, non-profit enterprises, local governments, and other small entities as defined by the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603). This analysis is to inform the agency and the public of the expected economic effects of the alternatives, and aid the agency in considering any significant regulatory alternatives that would accomplish the applicable objectives and minimize the economic impact on affected small entities. The RFA does not require the alternative with the least cost or with the least adverse effect on small entities be chosen as the preferred alternative.

    The IRFA must only address the effects of a proposed rule on entities subject to the regulation (i.e., entities to which the rule will directly apply) rather than all entities affected by the regulation, which would include entities to which the rule will indirectly apply.

    Part 121 of Title 13, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sets forth, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories, the maximum number of employees or average annual gross receipts a business may have to be considered a small entity for RFA purposes. See 13 CFR 121.201. Under this provision, the U.S. Small Business Administration established criteria for businesses in the fishery sector to qualify as small entities. Standards are expressed either in number of employees, or annual receipts in millions of dollars. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small (13 CFR 121.201).

    Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with SBA's Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). This standard is only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA.

    NMFS's small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing is $11 million in annual gross receipts. This standard applies to all businesses classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411 for commercial fishing, including all businesses classified as commercial finfish fishing (NAICS 114111), commercial shellfish fishing (NAICS 114112), and other commercial marine fishing (NAICS 114119) businesses. (50 CFR 200.2; 13 CFR 121.201).

    Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

    Each year, the states of Washington, Oregon, California, and the treaty tribes that fish for halibut meet with their fishery participants to review halibut management under the Plan. Based on feedback from these meetings and experience from the previous year's fishing season, the states or the tribes may propose changes to the Plan for the upcoming year at the Council's September and November meetings. Proposed changes to the Plan are intended to remedy any problems encountered during the previous year's management, problems with other fisheries with overlapping management jurisdiction (i.e., Pacific Coast groundfish), or other anticipated problems. For 2018, the Pacific Council has proposed changes to the Plan that affect the recreational (sport) and the incidental sablefish commercial fishery.

    Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

    The legal authority for this action is The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 at 16 U.S.C. 773c. Under this Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall have general responsibility to carry out the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada, and the Secretary shall adopt such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act. Section 773c(c) also authorizes the regional fishery management council having authority for the geographic area concerned (the Council) to develop regulations governing the Pacific halibut catch in United States portion of Convention waters that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the International Pacific Halibut Commission. The Council's main management objective for the Pacific halibut fishery in Area 2A is to manage fisheries to remain within the TAC for Area 2A. Another objective is to allow each commercial, recreational (sport), and tribal fishery to target halibut in the manner that is appropriate to meet the conservation requirements for species that co-occur with Pacific halibut. A third objective is to meet the needs of fishery participants in particular fisheries and fishing areas.

    A Description and, Where Feasible, Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    This rule may affect some charterboat operations in Area 2A and participants in the incidental sablefish fishery off the coast of Washington. Previous analyses determined that charterboats and the non-treaty directed commercial fishing vessels are small businesses. See 77 FR 5477 (Feb. 3, 2012) and 76 FR 2876 (Jan. 18, 2011).

    In 2016, 607 vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut. IPHC issues licenses for: The 2A directed commercial fishery (159 licenses) and the incidental fishery in the sablefish primary fishery in Area 2A (8 licenses in 2016); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (310 licenses in 2016); and the charterboat fleet (120 licenses in 2016). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. These license estimates overstate the number of vessels that participate in the fishery. IPHC estimates that 60 vessels participated in the directed commercial fishery, 100 vessels in the incidental commercial (salmon) fishery, and 13 vessels in the incidental commercial (sablefish) fishery. Recent information on charterboat activity is not available, prior analysis indicated that 60 percent of the IPHC charterboat license holders may be affected by these regulations.

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The proposed changes to the Plan and domestic management measures do not include any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    Description and Estimate of Economic Effects on Entities, by Entity Size and Industry

    The major effect of halibut management on small entities will be from the internationally set TAC decisions made by the IPHC. That decision is independent from this proposed action. This proposed action only makes minor changes to the Plan to provide increased recreational opportunities under the allocations that result from the TAC. Commercial opportunities may be fewer with the incidental sablefish maximum allocation lowering to 50,000 pounds. However when the maximum of 70,000 pounds has been allocated, attainment greater than 50,000 pounds has not occurred since 2006. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries; therefore, none of these changes will have a disproportionately negative effect on small entities versus large entities. The proposed changes to the plan are considered minor, with minimal economic effects.

    An Explanation of the Criteria Used To Evaluate Whether the Rule Would Impose “Significant” Economic Effects

    The proposed sport and commercial management measures implement the Plan by managing the fisheries to meet the differing fishery needs of the various areas along the coast according to the Plan's objectives. These changes were uncontroversial throughout the Council's public process and are considered minor because the timing and level of participation are not expected to change. Washington has estimated that 60,000 pounds are needed for a season day, and the most the Washington recreational fishery will gain from the change to the incidental sablefish allocation is 20,000 pounds. The proposed changes to the plan are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    An Explanation of the Criteria Used To Evaluate Whether the Rule Would Impose Effects on “a Substantial Number” of Small Entities

    The entirety of the United States' halibut fishery will be impacted by these changes, all of the entities of which are considered small. However, the effects of the rule would be minimal as described above. As previously mentioned, in 2016 eight vessels were licensed to catch halibut in the sablefish fishery. For 2017, the average number of participants in the Columbia River subarea was 73, with the highest number on the first two days and last day. In Washington subareas, most participation occurred in the first two days of fishing, averaging 8,048 anglers.

    A Description of, and an Explanation of the Basis for, Assumptions Used

    In the description of the entities affected, estimates of the number of charterboats were based off a 2004 report by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. This report has not been updated and the number of entities is assumed to be similar.

    Relevant Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    There are no relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

    A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and That Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities

    The status quo alternative would not achieve the objectives and requirements of the Convention and Halibut Act. And because the effects of the rule would be minimal, there are no other additional significant alternatives that would further minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities while achieving the goals and objectives of the Convention and Halibut Act. In addition, these changes were proposed by stakeholders to address the needs of the fisheries, and, as explained above, the proposed changes are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    A copy of this analysis is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this action.

    There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. Section 302(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Pacific Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho.

    The U.S. Government formally recognizes that the 13 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the tribes' usual and accustomed fishing areas (described at 50 CFR 300.64). Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the proposed changes to the Plan, have been developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.

    A consultation for the 2018-2022 Area 2A Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan will be concluded at the time the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 25, 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 300, subpart E, is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries 1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

    2. In § 300.63, revise paragraph (b)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 300.63 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in area 2A.

    (b) * * *

    (3) A portion of the Area 2A Washington recreational TAC is allocated as incidental catch in the sablefish primary fishery north of 46°53.30′ N lat, (Pt. Chehalis, Washington), which is regulated under 50 CFR 660.231. This fishing opportunity is only available in years in which the Washington recreational TAC is 214, 110 lb (97.1 mt) or greater, provided that a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.5 mt) is available to the sablefish fishery. Each year that this harvest is available, the landing restrictions necessary to keep this fishery within its allocation will be recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council at its spring meetings, and will be published in the Federal Register. These restrictions will be designed to ensure the halibut harvest is incidental to the sablefish harvest and will be based on the amounts of halibut and sablefish available to this fishery, and other pertinent factors. The restrictions may include catch or landing ratios, landing limits, or other means to control the rate of halibut landings.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01772 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 20 Tuesday, January 30, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 24, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20503. 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.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by March 1, 2018. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    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.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Water Use Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to prepare and issue current official State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, value, and disposition, and resource use. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain . . . by the collection of statistics . . . and shall distribute them among agriculturists.”

    Need and Use of the Information: The Water Use Survey program will collect information on water usage for North Carolina agricultural operations that likely use between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gallons per day. For operations that are unable to provide water use data, an estimation guide is included in the questionnaire that the respondents can use to estimate their water usage based on their agricultural production data. The program will help the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality fulfill requirements of North Carolina state legislation enacted in 2008. Collecting data less frequently would prevent the agriculture industry from being kept abreast of water use changes for North Carolina.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Businesses or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 3,330.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,614.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Wine Grape Inventory Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to prepare and issue current official State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, value, and disposition. Limited data exists specifically for wine grapes. Currently, only Oregon and Washington publish annual statistics for wine grapes that are funded by their State Departments of Agriculture. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain . . . by the collection of statistics . . . and shall distribute them among agriculturists.”

    Need and Use of the Information: The Wine Grape Inventory survey program will collect information on number of producers, age of vines, acreage by wine grape variety, and number of vines by wine grape variety in select States. The program will provide data needed by the State Departments of Agriculture, other government agencies, and producer groups to track the growth and production practice information of the wine grape industry. Collecting data less frequently would prevent the agriculture industry from being kept abreast of changes at the State and variety level.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Businesses or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 1,330.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 482.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01667 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Idaho; Lower Valley Energy Crow Creek Pipeline Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public that the USDA Forest Service, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Montpelier Ranger District, is gathering information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with Lower Valley Energy's request to construct an eight-inch diameter, low pressure pipeline in a north-northeasterly direction between Montpelier, Idaho and Afton, Wyoming.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 1, 2018. The draft EIS is expected to be released in spring 2018, and the final EIS is expected in summer 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Montpelier Ranger District, 322 N. 4th Street, Montpelier, ID 83254. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected] or via facsimile to (208) 847-3426.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Fuell, Acting District Ranger, Montpelier Ranger District, (208) 547-1101 or Jessica Taylor, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator, Caribou-Targhee National Forest (208) 557-5837. A public scoping letter with more details is posted on the Forest website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ctnf/landmanagement/projects.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for this project is to provide natural gas to the Afton/Star Valley, Wyoming area by pipeline. Lower Valley Energy currently provides natural gas to the Afton/Star Valley area by trucking liquefied natural gas to a central distribution facility located in Star Valley. As the demand for natural gas for residences and commercial buildings continues to increase, the shipping of gas by truck becomes costlier and less efficient. Increased shipping by truck also elevates a public safety issue because the level of truck traffic carrying hazardous chemicals on public highways increases. Shortages occur each winter because truck shipments are stalled by the inclement weather. Construction of the proposed pipeline would eliminate the need for Lower Valley Energy to ship overland and would contain all natural gas conveyance to a single pipeline.

    Proposed Action

    The proposed routing of an eight-inch diameter, low pressure pipeline parallels existing road corridors through Forest Service ownership where feasible. In several locations, an existing road is the dividing feature between Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). In these areas, the pipeline will be constructed within the roadway corridor, however; due to potential visual, noise and other impacts, IRAs adjacent to the pipeline construction may be impacted. In other locations, terrain limitations, stream environments, or practicality (shorter route, less disturbance) results in deviating from the road corridor and, in some of these cases, results in construction within an IRA. The total pipeline length is approximately 48 miles, with approximately 20 miles occuring on NFS lands (approximately 119 acres), and 40 acres of disturbance occuring within IRAs.

    The project would directly impact the Meade Peak, Red Mountain, Telephone Draw and Hell Hole IRAs, and would be immediately adjacent to, and would thereby have some impact to, the Gannett Spring Creek and Sage Creek IRAs.

    No road building is proposed within IRAs. Within the IRAs, only activities needed to construct the pipeline would occur and the construction areas would be fully reclaimed to original contours and with native vegetation. Project activities would include digging a trench, hauling pipe, welding pipe, and burying the pipe as well as cleanup and reclamation. Alignment markers would be installed at inter-visible distances along the entire route. While the project would have impacts to General Forest, Rangeland and Grassland (GFRG) and Backcountry Restoration (BCR) IRA themes, only incidental timber cutting would occur in BCR themes because the vegetation communities are primarily sagebrush and mountain brush.

    The proposed action would also result in a plan amendment to make the project consistent with the Caribou Revised Forest Plan. The project would result in the establishment of a utility corridor for those portions of the pipeline that are outside existing corridors. The plan amendment would change the management prescription of approximately 119 acres to Management Prescription 8.1, Concentrated Development Areas.

    The 2012 Planning Rule, as amended, requires identification in the initial notice of the amendment of the substantive provisions that are likely to be directly related to the amendment. Based on the proposed amendment for the Lower Valley Energy Crow Creek Pipeline and requirements of the planning rule, the following substantive requirements of the 36 CFR 219 planning regulations would likely be directly related to the proposed amendment:

    § 219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses;

    § 219.10(a)(4) Appropriate placement of and sustainable management of infrastructure, such as recreational facilities and transportation and utility corridors; and

    § 219.10(a)(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

    Possible Alternatives

    Two alternative routes to the proposed route have been developed to date, although other alternatives may be considered that could provide mitigation of potential impacts. At a minimum, the “no action alternative” will be fully evaluated and analyzed along with the proposed action.

    Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Forest Service is the lead agency; there are no cooperating agencies.

    Responsible Official

    The Forest Supervisor of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest is the responsible official.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decisions to be made include whether to implement the proposed action, as designed; whether there are other alternatives capable of satisfying the purpose and need; whether any mitigation measures or monitoring is required to implement the proposed action or alternatives; and whether or not to approve the plan amendment. These decisions would be made in the record of decision, which would be issued following the publication of a final EIS and completion of the Forest Service objection process (36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B and 36 CFR part 219).

    Preliminary Issues

    The Forest Service will identify issues based on internal and external scoping comments and will analyze potential effects in a draft EIS. Due to the number of IRAs between Montpelier and the terminus of the pipeline, avoiding impacts to IRAs is not practical. Up to six IRAs could be impacted either directly or by activities occurring adjacent to the IRA. The project would directly impact the Meade Peak, Red Mountain, Telephone Draw and Hell Hole IRAs, and would be immediately adjacent to, and would thereby have some impact to, the Gannett Spring Creek and Sage Creek IRAs. The portions of IRAs that could be impacted include GFRG and BCR management classifications (36 CFR part 294).

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. In addition to this notice of intent, a legal notice will be published in the Idaho State Journal, newspaper of record, and the Star Valley Independent to ensure wide distribution of this notice.

    The purpose of this comment period is to provide an opportunity for the public to provide early and meaningful participation on a proposed action prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. Per 36 CFR 218 and 219, only those who provide specific, written comments regarding the proposed project or activity will be eligible to file an objection. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

    An additional opportunity for public participation will occur during the public comment period on the draft EIS, which will be initiated by the publication of a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 10, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01736 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the South Dakota Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that planning meetings of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2:00 p.m. (MST) on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to review and possibly vote on advisory memorandum culminating from the subtle racism briefing in March 2017.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. (MST).

    ADDRESSES:

    To be held via teleconference:

    Conference Call Toll-Free Number for Both Meetings: 1-888-267-6301, Conference ID: 8658344.

    TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mussatt, DFO, [email protected], 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-267-6301; Conference ID: 8658344. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 and provide the FRS operator with Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-267-6301; Conference ID: 8658344. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Wednesday, March 7, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=274 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    February 7, 2018 Agenda • Welcome and Roll Call • Review, Discuss and Possibly Vote on Advisory Memorandum on Subtle Racism in South Dakota • Public Comment • Adjourn

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 days prior to the meetings because of the exceptional circumstance of the potential government shutdown on February 8, 2018.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01748 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday February 9, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of preparing for its public meeting on voting rights issues in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, February 9, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-601-3878, Conference ID: 2383092.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Indiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=247). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Voting Rights in Indiana Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of this Committee doing work on the FY 2018 statutory enforcement report.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01798 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory Committee for To Discuss Proposed Panelists for a Hearing on Access To Voting in the State of Alabama AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Alabama Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. (Central) for the purpose of a discussion of proposed panelists and logistics for a hearing on Access to Voting in Alabama.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. (Central) Public Call Information: Dial: 888-516-2443, Conference ID: 7344613.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Barreras, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-516-2443, conference ID: 7344613. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to David Barreras at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Alabama Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=233&aid=17). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Proposed Panelists for a hearing on Access to Voting in Alabama Discussion on a venue for the hearing Next Steps Public Comment Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of this Committee doing work on the FY 2018 statutory enforcement report.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01755 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-61-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 272—Lehigh, Pennsylvania; Authorization of Production Activity; Fuling Plastic USA, Inc.; (Disposable Plastic and Paper Service Ware and Kitchenware Products); Allentown, Pennsylvania

    On September 27, 2017, Fuling Plastic USA, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ Subzone 272C, in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 46215, October 4, 2017). On January 25, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01735 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-886] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable January 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, 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) 482-3477 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 1, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from China for the period of review (POR) August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2017.1 On August 31, 2017, the petitioners, the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation, requested an administrative review of the order with respect to Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd. and United Power Packaging, Ltd. (collectively, Nozawa), Crown Polyethylene Products (International) Ltd (Crown), and High Den Enterprises Ltd. (High Den).2 On October 16, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the order on PRCBs from China with respect to Nozawa, Crown, and High Den.3 On January 5, 2018, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review of Nozawa, and Crown.4 On January 12, 2018, the petitioners timely withdrew their request of High Den.5 No other party requested a review.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 35754 (August 1, 2017).

    2See Letter from the petitioners to Commerce, “Re: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review,” dated August 31, 2017.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 48051 (October 16, 2017).

    4See Letter from the petitioners to Commerce, “Re: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Partial Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated January 5, 2018.

    5See Letter from the petitioners to Commerce, “Re: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated January 12, 2018.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” The petitioners withdrew their request for review within the 90-day time limit. Because we received no other requests for review of Nozawa, Crown, and High Den, and no other requests for the review of the order on PRCBs from the China with respect to other companies subject to the order, we are rescinding the administrative review of the order in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of PRCBs from China during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit or bonding rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    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 24, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01738 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-832] Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. Commerce preliminarily determines that Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd. (TMI) and Tianjin Magnesium Metal, Co., Ltd. (TMM) (collectively, TMI/TMM) had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable January 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965.

    Background

    On May 1, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China for the POR.1 On July 6, 2017, in response to a timely request from the petitioner,2 and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China with respect to TMI and TMM.3 Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now February 5, 2018.4

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 20315 (May 1, 2017).

    2See letter from U.S. Magnesium LLC (the petitioner), “Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 31, 2017.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 31292 (July 6, 2017). In the 2011-2012 administrative review of the order, Commerce determined TMM and TMI to be collapsed and treated as a single company for purposes of the proceeding and, because there were no changes to the facts which supported that decision since that determination was made, we continue to find that these companies are part of a single entity for this administrative review. See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 94 (January 2, 2014) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.

    4See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:

    (1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);

    (2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and

    (3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).

    “Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: Aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.

    Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.

    Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    We received timely submissions from TMI and TMM certifying that they did not have sales, shipments, or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.5 On July 10, 2017, we requested the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data file of entries of subject merchandise imported into the United States during the POR, and exported by TMI and/or TMM.6 This query returned no entries during the POR.7 Additionally, in order to examine TMI's and TMM's claim, we sent an inquiry to CBP requesting that any CBP officer alert Commerce if he/she had information contrary to these no-shipments claims.8 We received no notification from CBP of any such entries of subject merchandise concerning these companies.9

    5See letter from TMI, “Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China; A-570-832; Certification of No Sales by Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd.,” dated August 4, 2017, at first attachment to the letter. See letter from TMM, “Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China; A-570-832; Certification of No Sales by Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd.,” dated August 4, 2017, at first attachment to the letter.

    6See Memorandum, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,” dated October 16, 2017 (No Shipments Memo), at Attachment 1.

    7Id. at Attachment 2.

    8Id. at Attachment 3. See also CBP message 6273308, dated October 16, 2017.

    9See No Shipments Memo, at Attachment 4.

    Because we have not received information to the contrary from CBP, consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine that TMI/TMM had no shipments during the POR. In addition, we find it is not appropriate to rescind this review with respect to TMI/TMM but, rather, to complete the review with respect to TMI/TMM and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review, consistent with our practice in non-market economy (NME) cases.10

    10See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 2014-2015, 81 FR 72567 (October 20, 2016) and the “Assessment Rates” section, below.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.11 Rebuttals to case briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the date for filing case briefs.12 Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (a) A statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.13 Parties submitting briefs should do so pursuant to Commerce's electronic filing system: Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).14 ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    12See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1)(2).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

    14See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    Unless extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including our analysis of all issues raised in any written brief, not later than 120 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    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.15 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Pursuant to Commerce's practice in NME cases, if Commerce continues to determine in the final results that that TMI/TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries during the POR from TMI/TMM will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.16

    15See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    16 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI/TMM, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI/TMM in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate of 111.73 percent; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement off antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    This notice is issued in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01740 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before February 14, 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 Nadia Musa, Grants Management Division, 301-628-1338 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The development of a standardized RPPR was an initiative of the Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a Committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). It was also part of the implementation of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-107). Consistent with the purposes of that Act, the objective of this initiative was to establish a uniform format for reporting performance on Federally-funded research projects. NOAA has not previously used this form, but needs to become in compliance with this Act by using this form for all progress reports required for grants awarded by NOAA, starting with the reporting cycle ending January 31, 2018.

    The RPPR is intended to address progress for the most recently completed period, at the frequency required or designated by the sponsoring agency. Information, once reported, does not have to be provided again on subsequent reports. The RPPR requests various types of information, regarding: accomplishments, products, participants and other collaborating organizations, impact, changes/problems, budgetary information and outcomes.

    II. Method of Collection

    An on line form will be used.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Emergency (request for a new information collection). Per the Paperwork Reduction Act regulations, 5 CFR 1320.13, we are making this request in order to bring NOAA research grantee reporting into compliance with mandated federal reporting requirements (2 CFR Section 200,328), which NOAA must implement for the upcoming reporting cycle on January 30, 2018.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; Federal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: January 18, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01770 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0015.”

    By email addressed to: [email protected] or

    By mail addressed to: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

    A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0015.”

    By mail addressed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581;

    By hand delivery/courier to the same address; or

    • Through the Commission's website at http://comments.cftc.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments through the website.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting http://RegInfo.gov. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Charnisky, Market Analyst, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (312) 596-0630; [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: “Copies of Crop and Market Information Reports,” OMB Control No. 3038-0015. This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The information collected pursuant to this rule, 17 CFR 1.40, is in the public interest and is necessary for market surveillance. Manipulation of commodity futures prices is a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act). Section 9(a)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 13(a)(2)) prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading or knowingly inaccurate reports that affect or tend to affect the prices of commodities. In order to facilitate the enforcement of this provision, Commission regulation 1.40 requires that members of an exchange and FCMs provide upon request copies of any report published or given general circulation which concerns crop or market information that affects or tends to affect the price of any commodity.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). A 60-day notice of intent to renew collection 3038-0015 (the “60-Day Notice”) was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 55590 (Nov. 22, 2017).

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 10.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1.7 hours.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01686 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [Docket DARS-2017-0018; OMB Control Number 0704-0525] 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 March 1, 2018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 225 and 252.225-7049, Prohibition on Acquisition of Commercial Satellite Services from Certain Foreign Entities—Representations; OMB Control Number 0704-0525.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Number of Respondents: 256.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 256.

    Average Burden per Response: .25 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 64.

    Needs and Uses: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provision 252.225-7049, Prohibition on Acquisition of Commercial Satellite Services from Certain Foreign Entities—Representations, is used by contracting officers to determine whether the offeror is subject to the statutory prohibition on award of contracts for commercial satellite services to certain foreign entities.

    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. 2018-01784 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID USA-2016-HQ-0039] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Surgeon General, United States Medical Command (MEDCOM), DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Heart of Recovery—Military Caregiver Needs Assessment; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,500.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to support the formation of the United States Army Office of the Surgeon General Military Caregivers Program: Heart of Recovery.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01762 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup Project AGENCY:

    Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

    The opportunity for public comment is at 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

    This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    Residence Inn Idaho Falls, 635 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bradley P. Bugger, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-0833; Fax (208) 526-8789 or email: [email protected] or visit the Board's internet home page at: https://energy.gov/em/icpcab/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Bradley P. Bugger, at the address above, for the most current agenda):

    • Recent Public Outreach • Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) Overview • Update on Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU) • EM Budget Priorities • Update on Status of Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant (AMWTP) Future Mission Study • State of Idaho Comments on AMWTP Future Mission • Discussion of Future Handling of High-Level Waste • Board Discussion of Potential Recommendations

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Idaho Cleanup Project, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bradley P. Bugger at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Bradley P. Bugger at the address or telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Bradley P. Bugger, Federal Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: https://energy.gov/em/icpcab/listings/cab-meetings.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on January 25, 2018. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01763 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Orders Issued Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act During December 2017 FE Docket Nos. RAINBOW ENERGY MARKETING CORPORATION 17-148-NG VALLEY CROSSING PIPELINE, LLC 17-146-NG COAHUILA ENERGY 17-150-NG CONOCOPHILLIPS CANADA MARKETING &TRADING ULC 17-147-NG FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P 17-151-LNG BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC 17-42-NG AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of orders.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during December 2017, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, and to import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG). These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE website at http://energy.gov/fe/listing-doefe-authorizationsorders-issued-2017.

    They are also available for inspection and copying in the U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Division of Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2018. Robert J. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil and Natural Gas (Acting). Appendix DOE/FE Orders Granting Import/Export Authorizations 4126 12/5/17 17-148-NG Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation Order 4126 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4127 12/5/17 17-146-NG Valley Crossing Pipeline, LLC Order 4127 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Mexico. 4128 12/12/17 17-150-NG Coahuila Energy Order 4128 granting blanket authority to export natural gas to Mexico. 4129 12/12/17 17-147-NG ConocoPhillips Canada Marketing & Trading ULC Order 4129 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 4130 12/12/17 17-151-LNG Freeport LNG Development, L.P Order 4130 granting blanket authority to import LNG from various international sources by vessels. 4021-A 12/12/17 17-42-NG BP West Coast Products LLC Order 4021-A vacating blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01707 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [P-2444-028] Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Extension of time request.

    b. Project No.: 2444-028.

    c. Date Filed: December 8, 2017, and supplemented January 12, 2018.

    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: White River Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the White River in Ashland County, Wisconsin.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William P. Zawacki, Director of Hydro Plants, 1414 W. Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702, (715) 737-1136.

    i. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs, (202) 502-8666, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2444-028.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests an extension until January 31, 2021 to continue operating the project under the temporarily amended Reservoir Operating Plan. The amended plan allows the applicant to operate the reservoir up to an elevation of 712.6 feet above mean sea level, or one foot above the normally required maximum elevation. The applicant has been allowed to operate with the higher reservoir elevation since August 1, 2016 due to a turbine failure, which limited operational flexibility. At the end of the extended period, the applicant would return to the previously required elevation or request that the temporary amendment be made permanent.

    l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE, or PROTEST as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the temporary variance request. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01788 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene Project Nos. Public Service Company of New Hampshire 1893-080, 2456-082, 7528-024, 2457-042, 2288-055, and 2287-050.
  • HSE Hydro NH Amoskeag, LLC
  • HSE Hydro NH Hooksett, LLC
  • HSE Hydro NH Garvin Falls, LLC HSE Hydro NH Ayers Island, LLC HSE Hydro NH Canaan, LLC HSE Hydro NH Eastman Falls, LLC HSE Hydro NH Gorham, LLC HSE Hydro NH Smith, LLC

    On December 29, 2017, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (transferor) and the transferees listed above filed an application for transfer of licenses for the following projects.

    Project Nos. Project names Locations P-1893-080 Merrimack River Project Merrimack River, Merrimack and Hillsborough counties, NH. P-2456-082 Ayers Island Hydroelectric Project Pemigewasset River, Belknap and Grafton counties, NH. P-7528-024 Canaan Project Connecticut River, Coos County, NH. P-2457-042 Eastman Falls Project Pemigewasset River, Belknap and Grafton counties, NH. P-2288-055 Gorham Project Androscoggin River, Coos County, NH. P-2287-050 J. Brodie Smith Project Androscoggin River, Coos County, NH.

    The transferor and transferees seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for the above mentioned projects from the transferor to the transferees.

    Applicant Contacts: For Transferor: Mr. Robert A. Bersak, Eversource Energy, 780 N. Commercial Street, P.O. Box 330, Manchester, NH 03105-0330, Phone: 603-634-3355, Email: [email protected] and Mr. James H. Hancock, Jr., Balch & Bingham, LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-226-3418, Email: [email protected]

    For Transferees: Mr. David Meeker, Hull Street Energy, LLC, 4920 Elm Street, Suite 205, Bethesda MD 20814, Phone: 240-800-3217, Email: [email protected] and Mr. Jeffrey Davidson, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-585-6678, Email: [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.

    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice, by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number(s) P-1893-080, P-2456-082, P-7528-024, P-2457-042, P-2288-055, and P-2287-050.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01786 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-25-000.

    Applicants: Corning Natural Gas Corporation.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: 2018 Rate Changes to be effective 1/22/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/19/18.

    Accession Number: 201801195149.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-264-001.

    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Fuel Retention Adjustment to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180116-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-348-000.

    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Duke K410135 Release for 2018-01-13 to be effective 1/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180116-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01700 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting of the California Independent System Operator Corporation:

    Review of Reliability Must-Run and Capacity Procurement Mechanism January 30, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (PST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: California Independent System Operator Corporation, 250 Outcropping Way, Folsom, CA 95630.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at www.caiso.com.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER18-230, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC Docket No. ER18-240, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC Docket No. ER18-641, California Independent System Operator, Corporation

    For more information, contact: Saeed Farrokhpay, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (916) 294-0322, [email protected]

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01794 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-47-000] Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on January 16, 2018, Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Transwestern), 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 7700, filed a Prior Notice Request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to: (1) Construct, own, operate and maintain certain modifications to its existing compressor units at its WT-1 Compressor Station (WT-1 Station) in Lea County, New Mexico; and (2) increase capacity on its West Texas Lateral between the WT-1 Station and Compressor Station 9 up to 130,000 thousand cubic feet per day of natural gas, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected]gov or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Mr. Kelly Allen, Manager, Regulatory Affairs Department for Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, or call 713-989-2606, or by email [email protected]

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the e-Filing link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01790 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Projects Nos. 1940-029 and 1966-054] Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for new licenses for the 2.6-megawatt (MW) Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1940-029) and the 17.24-MW Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1966-054) and has prepared a single environmental assessment (EA) that includes both projects. Both projects are located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin.

    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the projects and concludes that licensing the projects, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. For each project, enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected]; toll-free at 1-866-208-3676; or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-1940-029 or P-1966-054, as appropriate.

    For further information, contact Lee Emery at (202) 502-8379 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01787 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-50-000.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.

    Description: Application for Federal Power Act Section 203 Approval and Request for Expedited Consideration of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-32-000.

    Applicants: Gray Hawk Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Gray Hawk Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-426-003.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Missouri River Energy Services Member Formula Rate (Denison) Compliance Filing to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-360-001.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: EAI-AECI LBA Agreement Errata to be effective 12/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-692-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-01-22_SA 3084 St. Joseph Phase II-NIPSCO GIA (J351) to be effective 1/5/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-693-000,

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation; SA 804, Fast Process Agreement with MDT (Fox Farm Road) to be effective 1/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-694-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: La Paloma Generating Company GSFA and GIA Amendment (SA 18) to be effective 1/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-695-000.

    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, PECO Energy Company.

    Description: Request for Abandonment Costs Recovery Pre-Approval for PJM RTEP Project 9A of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 1/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180122-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-696-000.

    Applicants: Summer Energy Northeast, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: REP Energy LLC Name Change to Summer Energy Northeast, LLC to be effective 1/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-697-000.

    Applicants: Gray Hawk Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 3/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-699-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WPPI Metering Agreement (FERC Rate Schedule No. 115) to be effective 1/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01697 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP18-45-000] Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on January 10, 2018, Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (Dominion), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed in Docket No. CP18-45-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct and operate the Sweden Valley Project (Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Kenan W. Carioti, Regulatory & Certificates Analyst III, Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 707 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219 at (804) 771-4018.

    Specifically, the Project will enable Dominion to provide 120,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service from Pennsylvania to Ohio for delivery to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. The Project will include construction of: Approximately 1.7 miles 20-inch-diameter pipeline lateral to the new Port Washington Metering and Regulation (M&R) delivery point in Tuscarawas County, OH; approximately 3.2 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline looping in Greene County, PA; the re-wheel of compressors on three existing centrifugal compression sets at Dominion's existing Newark Compressor Station in Licking County, OH; the installation of regulation equipment at Dominion existing South Bend Compressor Station in Armstrong County, PA and Leidy M&R Station in Clinton County, PA; and the construction of related appurtenant facilities. Dominion is proposing incremental rates for transportation service on the facilities proposed for construction herein. The cost of the project will be $49,876,709 million.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 14, 2018.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01789 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-697-000] Gray Hawk Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Gray Hawk Solar, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 12, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01695 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited 1. EC17-88-000 1-12-2018 Commissioner Neil Chatterjee.1 2. CP17-15-000 1-18-2018 Dominion Energy. 3. CP15-554-000
  • CP15-555-000
  • 1-22-2018 FERC Staff.2
    Exempt 1. P-2100-000 1-8-2018 U.S. House Representative Doug LaMalfa. 2. CP15-554-000
  • CP15-554-001.
  • CP15-554-002.
  • CP15-555-000.
  • CP15-555-001.
  • 1-10-2018 U.S. Senator Tim Kaine.
    3. CP14-529-000 1-10-2018 U.S. Senators.3 4. P-10808-000 1-10-2018 U.S. House Representative John Moolenaar. 5. CP16-454-000
  • CP16-455-000
  • 1-12-2018 FERC Staff.4
    1 Memorandum reporting phone call on 1/1/2018 with Williams Scherman. 2 Email dated 1/19/2018 with Professor Ryan Emanuel from North Carolina State University. 3 Senators Edward J. Markey and Elizabeth Warren. 4 Email dated 1/1/2018 with Melanie A. Stevens from the U.S. Department of Justice.
    Dated: January 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01696 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP18-48-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Joint Application of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline LLC, and Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations.

    Filed Date: 1/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180116-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-359-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission.

    Description: Compliance filing DECG—2017 Interruptible Revenue Sharing Report.

    Filed Date: 1/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180119-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/31/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01699 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR18-11-000] Stateline Crude, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on January 22, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), Stateline Crude, LLC (Stateline), filed a petition for a declaratory order (petition) seeking approval of the overall rate structure and terms of service for a new crude oil pipeline system in the Delaware Basin region of Texas and New Mexico. The proposed facilities will gather and transport crude oil produced in the Delaware Basin to interconnections with Plains Pipeline, L.P. and Rangeland RIO Pipeline in Reeves and Loving Counties, Texas, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 16, 2018.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01785 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14785-000] Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.

    b. Project No.: 14785-000.

    c. Date Filed: October 18, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

    e. Name of Project: Hidden Falls Lake Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on Eastern Baranof Island in the City of Sitka Borough, approximately 20 miles northeast of the Sitka, Alaska.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Scott Wagner, NSRAA, 1308 Sawmill Creek Road, Sitka, AK 99835, (907) 747-6850.

    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, (202) 502-6778, or [email protected]

    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions.

    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents: The Commission directs, pursuant to section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see Order No. 533, issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23,108 (May 20, 1991)) that all comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with the Commission: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission: 105 days from the issuance of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14785-000.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    l. Description of Project: The proposed Hidden Falls Lake Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An existing, approximately 18-foot by 24-foot powerhouse containing one existing 250-kilowatt (kW) turbine/generating unit; (2) a proposed, approximately 27-foot by 31-foot powerhouse containing one proposed 80-kW turbine/generating unit; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates the project would have an average annual generation of 1,401,600 kW-hours.

    m. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number, P-14785, in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    n. Development Application: Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.

    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01791 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-46-000] Adelphia Gateway, LLC; Notice of Applications

    Take notice that on January 12, 2018, Adelphia Gateway, LLC (Adelphia), 1415 Wyckoff Road Wall, New Jersey 07719, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's rules and regulations requesting certificate authority to acquire and convert certain existing pipeline and auxiliary facilities, to construct additional auxiliary facilities, and to own and operate the existing and new facilities as an interstate natural gas pipeline system for its proposed Adelphia Gateway Pipeline Project located in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Adelphia plans to provide 250,000 Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas transportation capacity from an interconnection with Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Bucks County, Pennsylvania to Marcus Hook, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and 525,000 Dth/d of combined natural gas transportation capacity from an interconnection with Texas Eastern in Bucks County and an interconnection with Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC in Northampton County to Martins Creek Terminal, Martins Creek, Pennsylvania, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Specifically, Adelphia proposes to (i) acquire an existing 84-mile, 18-inch-diameter mainline and 4.5-mile, 20-inch-diameter lateral gas pipeline, and existing appurtenant and auxiliary facilities, all of which are currently owned and operated in non-FERC jurisdictional service by Interstate Energy Company (ICE); (ii) convert a portion of these existing facilities from dual oil and gas intrastate transportation service to solely natural gas transportation service; and (iii) construct additional new facilities including two compressor stations totaling 11,250 horsepower, two pipeline laterals totaling 4.6-miles extending from the planned Marcus Hook Compressor Station to interconnections in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania and Claymont, New Castle County, Delaware, and various M&R stations.

    Additionally, Adelphia requests: (i) A blanket certificate pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F and a blanket certificate pursuant to Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulations; (ii) approval of its proposed pro forma tariff and certain non-conforming provisions in its firm service agreements with existing shippers on the IEC system; and (iii) any such other authorizations and waivers as may be necessary from the Commission to allow Adelphia to undertake the activities described in its Application.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to William P. Scharfenberg, Assistant General Counsel, Adelphia Gateway, LLC, 1415 Wyckoff Road, Wall, NJ 07719, or call (732) 938-1134, or email: [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 13, 2018.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01792 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2698-100] Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Request for a temporary variance from elevation requirements.

    b. Project No.: 2698-100.

    c. Date Filed: October 27, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: East Fork Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeff Lineberger, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 S. Church Street, Mail Stop EC 12Y, Charlotte, NC 28202, (704) 382-5942.

    i. FERC Contact: Zeena Aljibury, (202) 502-6065, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: February 23, 2018.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2698-100.

    k. Description of Request: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC requests Commission approval for temporary modifications of normal reservoir elevations to perform maintenance work at the Tennessee Creek, Bear Creek, and Cedar Cliff Developments of the project. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is proposing to begin the drawdowns starting at Bear Creek Lake, then Cedar Cliff Lake, and then Tanasee Creek and Wolf Creek Lakes respectively. Drawdowns and refills would begin from February 15, 2018 and continue through August 2018. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC will also close some of its recreation areas during the drawdown to include Bear Creek Access Area, Cedar Cliff Access Area, and Wolf Creek Access Area. Finally, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has consulted with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Forest Service, and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources concerning these temporary modifications. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC also consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01793 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-56-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Consumers Energy Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-01-24_Compliance filing re Consumers depreciation rates to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5008.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-700-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-01-23_SA 3006 Duke-Jordan Creek 1st Revised GIA (J515) to be effective 1/8/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-701-000.

    Applicants: Fenton Power Partners I, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Fenton Notice of Non-Material Change in Status and MBR Tariff Revision to be effective 3/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-702-000.

    Applicants: Hoosier Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Hoosier Wind Notice of Non-Material Change in Status and MBR Tariff Revision to be effective 3/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-703-000.

    Applicants: Wapsipinicon Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Wapsipinicon Notice of Non-Material Change in Status and MBR Tariff Revision to be effective 3/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-704-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: ISO New England Inc.—Resource Termination for Portion of Capacity Supply Obligation of Blue Sky West LLC.

    Filed Date: 1/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180123-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-705-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4903; Queue No. AC1-012 to be effective 8/4/2017.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5047.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-706-.000

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT et al submits ECSA, Service Agreement Nos. 4797, 4806, and 4859 to be effective 3/26/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-707-000.

    Applicants: AL Sandersville, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 1/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-708-000.

    Applicants: Effingham County Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 1/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-709-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 1/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-710-000.

    Applicants: MPC Generating, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 1/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-711-000.

    Applicants: Walton County Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 1/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-712-000.

    Applicants: Washington County Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 1/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 1/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180124-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01698 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0645] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0645.

    Title: Sections 17.4, 17.48 and 17.49, Antenna Structure Registration Requirements.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 16,000 respondents; 154,162 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .1-.25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third-party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

    Total Annual Burden: 18,109 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $51,900.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of this information collection in order to obtain the full three-year approval. The Commission has adjusted its burden and cost estimates in order to update the collection burdens necessary to implement a uniform registration process as well as safe and effective lighting procedures for owners of antenna structures.

    Section 17.4 includes third party disclosure requirements. Specifically, Section 17.4 requires the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to register the structure with the Commission. This includes those structures used as part of the stations licensed by the Commission for the transmission of radio energy, or to be used as part of a cable television head-end system. If a Federal Government antenna structure is to be used by a Commission licensee, the structure must be registered with the Commission. Section 17.4(f) provides that antenna structure owners shall immediately provide to all tenant licensees and permittees notification that the structure has been registered. This may be done by providing either a copy of Form 854R or a link to the FCC antenna structure registration website. This notification may be done electronically or via paper mail.

    Section 17.4(g) requires antenna structure owners to display the Antenna Structure Registration Number in a conspicuous place that is readily visible near the base of the antenna. This rule specifically requires that the Antenna Structure Number be displayed so that it is conspicuously visible and legible from the publicly accessible area nearest the base of the antenna structure along the publicly accessible roadway or path. Where an antenna structure is surrounded by a perimeter fence, or where the point of access includes an access gate, the Antenna Structure Registration Number should be posted on the perimeter fence or access gate. Where multiple antenna structures having separate Antenna Structure Registration Numbers are located within a single fenced area, the Antenna Structure Registration Numbers must be posted both on the perimeter fence or access gate and near the base of each antenna structure. If the base of the antenna structure has more than one point of access, the rule requires that the Antenna Structure Registration Number be posted so that it is visible at the publicly accessible area nearest each such point of access. The registration number is issued to identify antenna structure owners in order to enforce the Congressionally-mandated provisions related to the owners.

    Sections 17.48 and 17.49 contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section 17.48(a) requires that antenna structure owners immediately report outages of top steady burning lights or flashing antenna structure lights to the FAA, if not corrected within 30 minutes. Upon receipt of the outage notification, the FAA will issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which notifies aircraft of the outage. Consistent with FAA requirements, if a lighting outage cannot be repaired within the FAA's original NOTAM period, Section 17.48(a) further requires the antenna structure owner to notify the FAA of that fact and provide any needed updates to its estimated return-to-service date. The rule also requires antenna structure owners to continue to provide these updates to the FAA every NOTAM period until its lights are repaired.

    Section 17.49 requires antenna structure owners to maintain a record of observed or otherwise known extinguishments or improper functioning of structure lights for two years and provide the records to the Commission upon request.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01649 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1249] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eliot Greenwald, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2235, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1249.

    OMB Approval Date: 01/18/2018.

    Expiration Date: 07/31/2018.

    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Financial Data, Complaints, and Other Compliance Information.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or household; State, local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents: 72 respondents; 3,614 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to 50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, monthly, on occasion, and one-time reporting requirements; Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at section 225 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the ADA, Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,537 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $9,000.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48152) which became effective on September 24, 2014.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: The FCC completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy-Impact-Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: On December 21, 2001, the Commission released the 2001 TRS Cost Recovery Order, document FCC 01-371, in which the Commission:

    (a) Directed the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (TRS Fund) administrator to continue to use the average cost per minute compensation methodology for the traditional TRS compensation rate;

    (b) required TRS providers to submit certain projected TRS-related cost and demand data to the TRS Fund Administrator to be used to calculate the rate; and

    (c) directed the TRS Fund administrator to expand its form for providers to itemize their actual and projected costs and demand data, to include specific sections to capture speech-to-speech (STS) and video relay service (VRS) costs and minutes of use.

    On November 19, 2007, the Commission released the 2007 Cost Recovery Order, document FCC 07-486, in which the Commission:

    (a) Adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate traditional TRS and interstate STS based on the Multi-state Average Rate Structure (MARS) plan, under which interstate TRS compensation rates are determined by weighted average of the states' intrastate compensation rates, and which includes for STS additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach;

    (b) adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate captioned telephone service (CTS), as well as internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), based on the MARS plan;

    (c) adopted a cost recovery methodology for internet Protocol (IP) Relay based on price caps;

    (d) adopted a cost recovery methodology for VRS that adopted tiered rates based on call volume;

    (e) clarified the nature and extent that certain categories of costs are compensable from the Fund; and;

    (f) addressed certain issues concerning the management and oversight of the Fund, including prohibiting financial incentives offered to consumers to make relay calls and the role of the Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D), mandatory minimum standards adopted in the 2007 Cost Recovery Order, requires that TRS providers submit to the TRS Fund administrator information reasonably requested by the administrator, including the following for intrastate traditional TRS, STS, and CTS:

    (a) The per-minute compensation rate(s);

    (b) whether the rate applies to session minutes or conversation minutes;

    (c) the number of intrastate session minutes; and

    (d) the number of intrastate conversation minutes.

    47 CFR 64.604(a)(7) requires that in order for VRS providers to be compensated from the TRS Fund for U.S. residents making VRS calls from international points to the U.S., the providers must pre-register the users before they leave the country for the purpose of making VRS calls from international points for up to a maximum period of 4 weeks.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(1) requires each state and interstate TRS provider to maintain a log of consumer complaints and annually file a summary of the complaint log with the Commission.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(2) requires each state and interstate TRS provider to submit contact information to the Commission.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(3) requires providers to submit speed of answer data.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(G) requires each new TRS provider to submit to the TRS Fund administrator a notification of its intent to participate in the TRS Fund 30 days prior to submitting its first report of TRS interstate minutes of use.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(6) provides procedures for consumers to file informal complaints alleging violations of the TRS rules, for TRS providers to respond to these complaints, and for the Commission to refer complaints concerning intrastate TRS to the states.

    47 CFR 64.604(c)(7) requires that contracts between state TRS administrators and the TRS vendor provide for the transfer of TRS customer profile data from the outgoing TRS vendor to the incoming TRS vendor.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01650 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1150] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1150.

    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services Certification Applications and Video Relay Service Compliance Requirements, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 72 respondents; 412 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to 25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, one-time and on occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the information collection is found at section 225 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the ADA, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,179 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $24,000.

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

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: In 1991, the Commission adopted rules governing the telecommunications relay services (TRS) program and procedures for each state TRS program to apply for initial Commission certification and renewal of Commission certification of each state program. Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Report and Order and Request for Comments, document FCC 91-213, published at 56 FR 36729, August 1, 1991 (1991 TRS Implementation Order).

    On July 28, 2011, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, document FCC 11-118, published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011, and at 76 FR 47476, August 5, 2011 (VRS Certification Order), adopting final and interim rules—designed to help prevent fraud and abuse, and ensure quality service, in the provision of internet-based forms of Telecommunications Relay Services (iTRS). The VRS Certification Order amended the Commission's process for certifying internet-based TRS (iTRS) providers as eligible for payment from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) for their provision of iTRS to ensure that iTRS providers receiving certification are qualified to provide iTRS in compliance with the Commission's rules and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse through improved oversight of such providers.

    On October 17, 2011, the Commission released Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 11-155, published at 76 FR 67070, October 31, 2011 (VRS Certification Reconsideration Order), modifying two aspects of information collection requirements contained in the VRS Certification Order.

    The VRS Certification Order as modified by the VRS Certification Reconsideration contains information collection requirements with respect to the following eight requirements, all of which are intended to ensure that providers are qualified to provide iTRS in compliance with the Commission's rules with no or minimal service interruption.

    (A) Required Evidence for Submission for Eligibility Certification. Each potential iTRS provider must submit full and detailed information in its application for certification that shows its ability to comply with the Commission's rules. Each applicant must provide a detailed description of how it will meet all non-waived mandatory minimum standards applicable to each form of TRS offered, including documentary and other evidence.

    In the case of VRS, such documentary and other evidence shall also demonstrate that the applicant leases, licenses or has acquired its own facilities and operates such facilities associated with TRS call centers and employs communications assistants, on a full or part-time basis, to staff such call centers at the date of the application. Such evidence shall include but not be limited to:

    1. For VRS applicants operating five or fewer call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center;

    2. For VRS applicants operating more than five call centers within the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for a representative sampling of five call centers;

    3. For VRS applicants operating call centers outside of the United States, a copy of each deed or lease for each call center;

    4. For all applicants, a list of individuals or entities that hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the applicant, have the power to vote 10 percent or more of the securities of the applicant, or exercise de jure or de facto control over the applicant, a description of the applicant's organizational structure, and the names of its executives, officers, members of its board of directors, general partners (in the case of a partnership), and managing members (in the case of a limited liability company);

    5. For all applicants, a list of the number of applicant's full-time and part-time employees involved in TRS operations, including and divided by the following positions: Executives and officers; video phone installers (in the case of VRS), communications assistants, and persons involved in marketing and sponsorship activities;

    6. Where applicable, a description of the call center infrastructure, and for all core call center functions (automatic call distribution, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS fund, and registration) a statement whether such equipment is owned, leased or licensed (and from whom if leased or licensed) and proofs of purchase, leases or license agreements, including a complete copy of any lease or license agreement for automatic call distribution;

    7. For all applicants, copies of employment agreements for all of the provider's employees directly involved in TRS operations, executives and communications assistants, and a list of names of employees directly involved in TRS operations need not be submitted with the application, but must be retained by the applicant and submitted to the Commission upon request; and

    8. For all applicants, a list of all sponsorship arrangements relating to internet-based TRS, including a description of any associated written agreements; copies of all such arrangements and agreements must be retained by the applicant for three years from the date of the application, and submitted to the Commission upon request.

    (B) Submission of Annual Report. Providers submit annual reports that include updates to the information listed under Section A above or certify that there are no changes to the information listed under Section A above.

    (C) Requiring Providers to Seek Prior Authorization of Voluntary Interruption of Service. A VRS provider seeking to voluntarily interrupt service for a period of 30 minutes or more in duration must first obtain Commission authorization by submitting a written request to the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) at least 60 days prior to any planned service interruption, with detailed information of:

    (i) Its justification for such interruption;

    (ii) Its plan to notify customers about the impending interruption; and

    (iii) Its plans for resuming service, so as to minimize the impact of such disruption on consumers through a smooth transition of temporary service to another provider, and restoration of its service at the completion of such interruption.

    (D) Reporting of Unforeseen Service Interruptions. With respect to brief, unforeseen service interruptions or in the event of a VRS provider's voluntary service interruption of less than 30 minutes in duration, the affected provider must submit a written notification to CGB within two business days of the commencement of the service interruption, with an explanation of when and how the provider has restored service or the provider's plan to do so imminently. In the event the provider has not restored service at the time such report is filed, the provider must submit a second report within two business days of the restoration of service with an explanation of when and how the provider has restored service.

    (E) Applicant Certifying Under Penalty of Perjury for Certification Application. The chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior executive of an applicant for iTRS certification with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided must certify under penalty of perjury that all application information required under the Commission's rules and orders has been provided and that all statements of fact, as well as all documentation contained in the application submission, are true, accurate, and complete.

    (F) Certified Provider Certifying Under Penalty of Perjury for Annual Compliance Filings. The CEO, CFO, or other senior executive of an iTRS provider with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, when submitting an annual compliance report under 47 CFR 64.606(g), must certify under penalty of perjury that all information required under the Commission's rules and orders has been provided and all statements of fact, as well as all documentation contained in the annual compliance report submission, are true, accurate, and complete.

    (G) Notification of Service Cessation. An applicant for certification must give its customers at least 30-days notice that it will no longer provide service should the Commission determine that the applicant's certification application does not qualify for certification under 47 CFR 64.606(a)(2) of the Commission's rules.

    (H) Notification on Website. A provider must provide notification of temporary service outages to consumers on an accessible website, and the provider must ensure that the information regarding service status is updated on its website in a timely manner.

    On June 10, 2013, the Commission made permanent the interim rule adopted in the VRS Certification Order requiring all applicants and providers of iTRS to certify, under penalty of perjury, that their certification applications and annual compliance reports are truthful, accurate, and complete.

    Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 13-82, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01753 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 19, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Hamilton Bancorp, Inc., Towson, Maryland; to engage in lending activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 25, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01756 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket Number: 101242018-111-02] Notice of Funding Availability: Council-Selected Restoration Component 2017 Funded Priorities List for Comprehensive Plan Commitment and Planning Support AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) announces the Notice of Funding Availability for the Council-Selected Restoration Component 2017 Funded Priorities List (FPL) for Comprehensive Commitment and Planning Support under the Council-Selected Restoration Component of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act).

    DATES:

    Applications will be accepted until April 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristin Smith, Council staff, telephone number: 504-444-3558; or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council approved the Council-Selected Restoration Component 2017 Funded Priorities List for Comprehensive Plan Commitment and Planning Support (2017 CPS FPL or CPS FPL) on January 24, 2018, authorized under the Council-Selected Restoration Component of the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)). The Council has published a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for financial assistance available through the CPS FPL, which provides guidance to Council members on the steps necessary to submit applications for funding to enhance collaboration, coordination, public engagement, and use of best available science needed to make efficient use of Gulf restoration funds resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The CPS FPL awards will support the Council's commitment to a coordinated approach to ecosystem restoration, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan Update 2016: Restoring the Gulf Coast's Ecosystem and Economy. The CPS FPL was finalized in September 2017 and was officially approved by the Council in the January 24, 2018 vote. The full text of the NOFA for the CPS FPL awards is available on the Council website at https://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/GO-RES_20180124_NOFA_CPS.pdf. To locate the opportunity on www.grants.gov, enter Funding Opportunity Number GCC-FPL-18-001 in the main search box.

    Keala J. Hughes, Director of External Affairs & Tribal Relations, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01702 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-18-18CI; Docket No. CDC-2018-0009] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection project entitled “Evaluation of TransLife Center (TLC): A Locally-Developed Combination Prevention Intervention for Transgender Women at High Risk of HIV Infection.” The collection is part of a research study designed to evaluate the efficacy of a locally developed and potentially effective intervention, TransLife Center (TLC), which provides combination HIV prevention services to adult transgender women at high risk for HIV infection.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before April 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0009 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number.

    Please note: Submit all Federal comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Evaluation of TransLife Center (TLC): A Locally-Developed Combination Prevention Intervention for Transgender Women at High Risk for HIV Infection—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC seeks to request a two-year OMB approval to collect data related to a project entitled “Evaluation of TransLife Center (TLC): A Locally-Developed Combination Prevention Intervention for Transgender Women at High Risk for HIV Infection.” With this study, CDC seeks to evaluate the efficacy of TLC, which provides combination (biomedical, behavioral and social/structural) HIV prevention and care services to adult transgender women at high risk for HIV infection, in a culturally specific and accessible environment.

    The information collected will help evaluate whether the TLC intervention is an effective HIV-prevention strategy by assessing whether exposure to TLC services results in improvements in participants' health and HIV prevention behaviors. In addition, CDC will assess whether intervention participants' behaviors significantly change from baseline to 4 and 8-month follow-up periods.

    CDC will conduct the study in the TLC program's home base of Chicago, Illinois. The study population will include 150 HIV-negative adult transgender women living in the Chicago metropolitan area. Participants will be at least 18 years of age; self-identify as transgender, transsexual, women and/or female whom had assigned male sex at birth; and have a self-reported history of sex with men in the past four months. The study population will also include 10 TLC staff members. Staff members will be adults, involved in the delivery of TLC intervention services.

    CDC anticipates enrollment of a diverse sample of transgender women comprised mainly of racial/ethnic minority participants under 35 years of age, consistent with the current TLC program and the epidemiology of HIV infection among transgender women. Intervention participants recruited to the study through a combination of approaches, including traditional print advertisement, referral, in-person outreach, and through word of mouth. TLC staff members will randomly selected to participate in the evaluation.

    CDC will use a quantitative assessment to collect information for this study. Researchers will deliver the assessment at the time of study enrollment and again at 4-month and 8-month follow-ups. CDC will use the assessment to measure changes in sexual risk behavior including condom use and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care engagement. Intervention mediators, including gender affirmation, collective self-esteem and social support, and intervention satisfaction measured. Participants will complete the assessment at baseline and again at 4- and 8-month follow-ups after joining the TLC program.

    CDC will also examine intervention experiences through semi-structured interview with 20 of the 150 TLC participants and 10 TLC staff members involved in the delivery of services through the TLC intervention. The interviews will capture participants and staff views about the TLC implementation process, the process through which the TLC intervention influences HIV risk behavior, and the role of the intervention in addressing social determinates of health (housing, employment, legal issues, health care access).

    CDC expects that 50% of transgender women screened will meet study eligibility and the initial screening to take approximately four minutes to complete. It will take respondents one minute to provide contact information. On three occasions, CDC will administer the assessment to 150 participants. The assessment will take 60 minutes (1 hour) to complete. On a single occasion, CDC will administer the interview to 30 participants (20 intervention participants and 10 TLC staff). The interview will take 60 minutes (1 hour) to complete.

    There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 252.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • General Public—Adults Eligibility Screener 150 1 4/60 10 General Public—Adults Contact Information 75 1 1/60 2 General Public—Adults Assessment 75 3 1.0 225 General Public—Adults Interview 15 1 1.0 15 Total 252
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01743 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE): Long-Term Follow-Up.

    OMB No.: 0970-0402.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), in partnership with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), both of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing a data collection activity as part of the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation Long-Term Follow-Up project (MIHOPE-LT). The purpose of MIHOPE-LT is to conduct follow-up studies that assess the long-term impact of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program. The design of MIHOPE-LT calls for multiple follow-up points including when the participating children are in kindergarten, 3rd grade, early adolescence, and late adolescence. This Federal Register Notice is specific to the first follow-up study. Data collected during the first follow-up study (when the children from the MIHOPE sample are of kindergarten age) will include the following: (1) A one-hour survey with the child's primary caregiver (who will be the mother if she is available), (2) direct assessments of child development, (3) a semi-structured interview with the caregiver, (4) surveys with the child's teacher, (5) a direct assessment of the caregiver, and (6) 15 minutes of videotaped interactions between the caregiver and child. In addition to collecting these data, the MIHOPE-LT project will also maintain up-to-date consent forms for the collection of administrative data. Future information collection requests and related Federal Register Notices will describe future data collection efforts for this project.

    Data collected during the kindergarten follow-up study will be used to estimate the effects of MIECHV-funded programs on seven domains: (1) Maternal health; (2) child health; (3) child development and school performance; (4) child maltreatment; (5) parenting; (6) crime or domestic violence; and (7) family economic self-sufficiency.

    Respondents: The respondents in this follow-up study will include 4,115 families who participated in MIHOPE and 4,115 teachers of the focal children from those families.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of responses per respondent Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Annual burden hours
    Survey of caregivers 4115 1372 1 1 1372 Direct assessments of children 4115 1372 1 1.5 2058 Semi-structured interview with caregivers 100 33 1 2 66 Survey of the focal children's teachers 4115 1372 1 0.5 686 Direct assessments of caregivers 4115 1372 1 0.25 343 Videotaped caregiver-child interactions 8230 2743 1 0.25 686

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,211.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Mary Jones, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01683 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-77-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Title: Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program: Guidance for Submitting an Annual or Final Report to the Secretary

    OMB No.: 0970-0409.

    Description: Section 511(e)(8)(A) of Title V of the Social Security Act requires that grantees under the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program for states and jurisdictions submit an annual report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the program and activities carried out under the program, including such data and information as the Secretary shall require. Section 511(h)(2)(A) further states that the requirements for the MIECHV grants to tribes, tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations are to be consistent, to the greatest extent practicable, with the requirements for grantees under the MIECHV program for states and jurisdictions.

    The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care, in collaboration with the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, has awarded grants for the Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (Tribal Home Visiting). The Tribal Home Visiting discretionary grants support cooperative agreements to conduct community needs assessments; plan for and implement high-quality, culturally-relevant, evidence-based home visiting programs in at-risk tribal communities; establish, measure, and report on progress toward meeting performance measures in six legislatively-mandated benchmark areas; and conduct rigorous evaluation activities to build the knowledge base on home visiting among Native populations.

    Tribal Home Visiting grantees have been notified that in every year of their grant, after the first year, they must comply with the requirement for submitting an Annual Report to the Secretary that should feature activities carried out under the program during the past reporting period and a final report to the Secretary during the final year of their grant. In order to assist grantees with meeting the requirements of the Annual and Final Report to the Secretary, ACF created guidance for grantees to use when writing their reports. The existing guidance (OMB Control No. 0970-0409, Expiration Date 10/31/18) provides sections where grantees must address the following:

    • Update on Home Visiting Program Goals and Objectives • Update on the Implementation of Home Visiting Program in Targeted Community(ies) • Progress toward Meeting Legislatively Mandated Benchmark Requirements • Update on Rigorous Evaluation Activities • Home Visiting Program Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Efforts • Administration of Home Visiting Program • Technical Assistance Needs

    The proposed data collection form is as follows:

    ACF is requesting approval to renew and update the existing Tribal Home Visiting Guidance for Submitting an Annual or Final Report to the Secretary (OMB Control No. 0970-0409) that will include instructions for grantees to submit either an annual or final report on the progress of their program to the Secretary, depending on the reporting period.

    Respondents: Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Managers (The information collection does not include direct interaction with individuals or families that receive the services).

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Annual/Final Report to the Secretary (depending on reporting period) 25 1 1 50 1250

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,250.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01705 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0129] Evaluating Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Clinical Trials; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public meeting entitled “Evaluating Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Clinical Trials.” Convened by the Duke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University and supported by a cooperative agreement with FDA, the purpose of the public meeting is to bring the stakeholder community together to discuss a variety of topics related to eligibility criteria in clinical trials and their potential impact on patient access to investigational drugs, and how to facilitate the enrollment of a diverse patient population.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on April 16, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20045. For additional travel and hotel information, please refer to the following website: https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/events/evaluating-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria-clinical-trials. There will also be a live webcast for those unable to attend the meeting in person (see Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dianne Paraoan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3326, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2500, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This public meeting implements FDA's mandate under section 610 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 to convene a public meeting to discuss clinical trial inclusion and exclusion criteria that will ultimately inform an FDA guidance on this subject. Among other things, the public meeting will include discussion about various ways in which participation in clinical trials can be improved, including through alternative trial designs and expanded access trials (see Section II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Meeting).

    Inclusion of relevant subpopulations in drug development programs helps ensure that approved products will be safe and effective for the population likely to be treated when the drug is marketed. However, certain eligibility criteria in clinical trials can exclude patient subgroups, resulting in the enrollment of study populations that may not be fully representative of that broader patient population. FDA has and will continue its efforts to encourage greater diversity in clinical trial populations. For example, FDA regulations require marketing applications to provide analyses of safety and effectiveness by demographic and other relevant subgroups (see 21 CFR 314.50(d)(5)(v)). In addition, in 2016, FDA published guidance on the collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials (available on FDA's guidance web page at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm126396.pdf).

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Meeting

    Topics for discussion during this meeting include:

    • The risks and benefits of participation in clinical trials as well as potential regulatory, geographical, and socioeconomic barriers to participation.

    • the rationale for eligibility criteria in clinical trials, as well as the impact of exclusion criteria on the enrollment of populations, such as infants, children, pregnant and lactating women, elderly, individuals with advanced disease, and individuals with co-morbid conditions.

    • alternative clinical trial designs that may increase enrollment of more diverse patient populations, while facilitating the collection of data to establish safety and effectiveness.

    • how appropriate patient populations can benefit from the results of trials that employ alternative designs.

    • how changes to eligibility criteria may impact the complexity and length of clinical trials, as well as the strength of data necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

    • opportunities for using data from expanded access trials.

    III. Participating in the Public Meeting

    Registration: To register for the public meeting, please visit the following website: https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/events/evaluating-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria-clinical-trials. Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone. Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by April 12, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. There will be no onsite registration. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. Duke-Margolis will post on its website if registration closes before the day of the public meeting.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sarah Supsiri at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, 202-791-9561, [email protected], no later than April 12, 2018.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting: This public meeting will also be webcast; archived video footage will be available at the Duke-Margolis website (https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/events/evaluating-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria-clinical-trials) following the meeting. Organizations are requested to register all participants, but to view using one connection per location whenever possible. Webcast participants will be sent technical system requirements in advance of the event. Prior to joining the streaming webcast of the public workshop, we recommend that you review these technical system requirements in advance.

    Transcripts: Please be advised that transcripts will not be available.

    FDA has verified the website addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    Meeting Materials: All event materials will be provided to registered attendees via email prior to the workshop and publicly available at the Duke-Margolis website: https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/events/evaluating-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria-clinical-trials.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01643 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-E-2082] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; Cardiomems HF Monitoring System AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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-2015-E-2082 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM. CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM is indicated for wirelessly measuring and monitoring pulmonary artery pressure and heart rate in New York Heart Association Class III heart failure patients who have been hospitalized for heart failure in the previous year. The hemodynamic data are used by physicians for heart failure management and with the goal of reducing heart failure hospitalizations. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 7,839,153) from CardioMEMS, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 15, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM is 2,786 days. Of this time, 1,525 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,261 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: October 13, 2006. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective October 13, 2006.

    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): December 15, 2010. The applicant claims December 14, 2010, as the date the premarket approval application (PMA) for CARDIOMEMS HF MONITORING SYSTEM (PMA P100045) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that PMA P100045 was submitted on December 15, 2010.

    3. The date the application was approved: May 28, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P100045 was approved on May 28, 2014.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,026 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01644 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-2521] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZEPATIER AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for ZEPATIER and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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-2016-E-2521 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZEPATIER.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product ZEPATIER (grazoprevir; elbasvir). ZEPATIER is indicated with or without ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 or 4 infection in adults. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for ZEPATIER (U.S. Patent No. 7,973,040) from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and MSD Italia s.r.l., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 10, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ZEPATIER represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ZEPATIER is 1,865 days. Of this time, 1,619 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 246 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: December 22, 2010. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on December 22, 2010.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: May 28, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for ZEPATIER (NDA 208-261) was initially submitted on May 28, 2015.

    3. The date the application was approved: January 28, 2016. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 208-261 was approved on January 28, 2016.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 188 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01642 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-2530] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GALLIPRANT AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for GALLIPRANT and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that animal drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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-2016-E-2530 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GALLIPRANT.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the animal drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product GALLIPRANT (grapiprant). GALLIPRANT is indicated for the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis in dogs. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for GALLIPRANT (U.S. Patent No. 7,960,407) from AskAt Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September 26, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this animal drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of GALLIPRANT represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for GALLIPRANT is 1,688 days. Of this time, 1,636 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 52 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: August 8, 2011. The applicant claims July 7, 2009, as the date the investigational new animal drug application (INAD) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the INAD effective date was August 8, 2011, which was the date a major health or environmental effects test was begun.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the animal drug product under section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b): January 29, 2016. The applicant claims January 25, 2016, as the date the new animal drug application (NADA) for GALLIPRANT (NADA 141-455) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NADA 141-455 was submitted on January 29, 2016.

    3. The date the application was approved: March 20, 2016. The applicant claims that NADA 141-455 was approved on March 21, 2016, however, FDA records indicate that NADA 141-455 was approved on Sunday, March 20, 2016.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 899 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01640 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-7001] Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers.” The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) creates incentives for the development of antibacterial and antifungal drug products that treat serious or life-threatening infections. The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide a resource for information on FDA's policies and procedures related to the designation of a qualified infectious disease product (QIDP).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 2, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-7001 for “Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Schumann, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1182.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers.” Title VIII of FDASIA created the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) provisions under section 505E of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355f). GAIN offers incentives for the development of antibacterial and antifungal drugs for human use to treat serious or life-threatening infections. The primary incentive contained in GAIN is a 5-year extension of exclusivity for which a QIDP-designated application qualifies upon approval under the FD&C Act. QIDPs also receive fast track designation at the sponsor's request (21 U.S.C. 356(b)(1)) and the first marketing application submitted for approval of a QIDP is granted priority review (21 U.S.C. 360n-1).

    This draft guidance provides information on the implementation of GAIN and responses to common questions that might arise regarding QIDP designation and review of QIDP new drug applications.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on qualified infectious disease product designation questions and answers. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Title: Draft Guidance for Industry on Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers.

    Description: As described in the draft guidance, a sponsor may request a QIDP designation at any time prior to that sponsor's submission of a marketing application under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)) for that sponsor's drug product. A request for QIDP designation should be submitted either to an investigational new drug (IND) application or as pre-IND correspondence.

    The cover letter for the QIDP designation request should include the following text in bold font at the top of the page: “Request for Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation Questions and Answers.” Requests for multiple indications can be combined in a single submission or made separately. The sponsor should clearly identify each indication for which it is requesting QIDP designation.

    As described further in the draft guidance, each request should include: (1) A discussion of the information that supports the role of the drug as an antibacterial or antifungal drug, for example, in vitro data, including any available data on mechanism of action; data from animal models of infection; (2) any available human data from phase 1, phase 2, or phase 3 studies; (3) the specific serious or life-threatening indication(s) for which the sponsor intends (or has begun) to develop the drug and the rationale or suitability for developing the drug for the proposed serious or life-threatening infection(s); and (4) the request may (but is not required to) include information to demonstrate that the product is an antibacterial or antifungal drug that has the capacity to treat a serious or life-threatening infection caused by either of the following: resistant pathogen(s), including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, and qualifying pathogens listed in 21 CFR 317.2.

    We estimate that approximately 33 requests for QIDP designation, as described in the draft guidance, will be submitted annually by approximately 25 sponsors, and that it will take approximately 60 hours to prepare and submit each request.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Requests for a QIDP Designation 25 1.32 33 60 1,980 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01662 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-0482] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VIEKIRA PAK AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for VIEKIRA PAK and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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-2016-E-0482 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; VIEKIRA PAK.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product VIEKIRA PAK (ombitasvir, paritaprevir, dasabuvir, and ritonavir). VIEKIRA PAK with or without ribavirin is indicated for the treatment of patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus infection including those with compensated cirrhosis. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for VIEKIRA PAK (U.S. Patent No. 8,501,238) from AbbVie Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 2, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of VIEKIRA PAK represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for VIEKIRA PAK is 2,391 days. Of this time, 2,148 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 243 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: June 4, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that June 4, 2008, is the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: April 21, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for VIEKIRA PAK (NDA 206619) was initially submitted on April 21, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: December 19, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 206619 was approved on December 19, 2014.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 93 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01651 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-E-2519] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; UPTRAVI AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for UPTRAVI and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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-2016-E-2519 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; UPTRAVI.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product UPTRAVI (selexipag). UPTRAVI is indicated for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH, WHO Group I) to delay disease progression and reduce the risk of hospitalization for PAH. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for UPTRAVI (U.S. Patent No. 7,205,302) from Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 2, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of UPTRAVI represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for UPTRAVI is 2,246 days. Of this time, 1,881 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 365 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: October 29, 2009. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on October 29, 2009.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 22, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for UPTRAVI (NDA 207947) was initially submitted on December 22, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: December 21, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 207947 was approved on December 21, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,305 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01637 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-1582; FDA-2016-E-1236] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; CRESEMBA—New Drug Aapplication 207500 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for CRESEMBA as approved under new drug application (NDA) 207500 and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product as approved under NDA 207500.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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 Nos. FDA-2016-E-1582 and FDA-2016-E-1236 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; CRESEMBA—NDA 207500.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product CRESEMBA (isavuconazonium sulfate). CRESEMBA is indicated for use in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and invasive mucormycosis. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for CRESEMBA as approved under NDA 207500 (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,812,238 and 7,459,561) from Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 28, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of CRESEMBA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for CRESEMBA is 3,528 days. Of this time, 3,286 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 242 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: July 10, 2005. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that July 10, 2005, is the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: July 8, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for CRESEMBA (NDA 207500) was initially submitted on July 8, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: March 6, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 207500 was approved on March 6, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension based on NDA 207500, this applicant seeks 5 years or 1,264 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01645 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-2476; FDA-2016-E-2472] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; LONSURF AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for LONSURF and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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 Nos. FDA-2016-E-2476 and FDA-2016-E-2472 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; LONSURF.” 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product LONSURF (trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride). LONSURF is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxalplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type, an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for LONSURF (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,479,500 and 7,799,783) from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 14, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of LONSURF represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for LONSURF is 6,083 days. Of this time, 5,805 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 278 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: January 28, 1999. FDA has verified the Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. claim that January 28, 1999, is the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b)/507 of the FD&C Act: December 19, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for LONSURF (NDA 207981) was initially submitted on December 19, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: September 22, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 207981 was approved on September 22, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,827 days or 1,013 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01641 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-1279 and FDA-2016-E-1282] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information.

    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 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 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 Office, 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 Nos. FDA-2016-E-1279 and FDA-2016-1282 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE.” 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 Office. 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 § 10.20 (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:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE. SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE is indicated for relief of aortic stenosis in patients with symptomatic heart disease due to severe native calcific aortic stenosis who are judged by a heart team, including a cardiac surgeon, to be at high or greater risk for open surgical therapy (i.e., Society of Thoracic Surgeons Operative Risk score 8 percent or at a 15 percent risk of mortality at 30 days). Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,585,321 and 8,591,575) from Edwards Lifesciences PVT, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 12, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE is 1,736 days. Of this time, 1,558 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 178 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving this device became effective: September 17, 2010. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on July 31, 2014. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on September 17, 2010, which represents the IDE effective date.

    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): December 22, 2014. The applicant claims December 19, 2014, as the date the premarket approval application (PMA) for SAPIEN 3 TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE (PMA P140031) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that PMA P140031 was submitted on December 22, 2014.

    3. The date the application was approved: June 17, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P140031 was approved on June 17, 2015.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 250 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01655 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Collaborative Innovation Award Review.

    Date: February 22-23, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy I, Room 1068, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Democracy I, Room 1073 Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0810, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Bench Testing.

    Date: February 27, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications,

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy I, Room 1066, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Barbara J. Nelson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Democracy I, Room 1080, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0806, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 25, 2018. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01822 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; GEMSSTAR.

    Date: February 26, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Hotel, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Primate Aging Database and Management.

    Date: March 1, 2018.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W233, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Anita H. Undale, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-747-7825, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 24, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01669 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Development and Maintenance of a Non-Human Primate Tissue Bank.

    Date: March 1, 2018.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W233, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Anita H. Undale, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-747-7825, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 24, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01670 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—B, Review of T32 Applications.

    Date: March 2, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase, 4300 Military Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Lisa A. Newman, SCD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18A, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 435-0965, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—A, Review of T32 Applications.

    Date: April 9, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda Downtown, 6711 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: John J. Laffan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2773, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: January 24, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01671 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0009] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0120 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0120, U.S. Coast Guard Non-appropriated Fund Employment Application. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0009] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0009], and must be received by March 1, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: [Insert OMB #s separated by a comma].

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 48836, October 20, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited two comments that were unrelated to the 60-day Notice. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

    Information Collection Request

    Title: U.S. Coast Guard Non-appropriated Fund Employment Application.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0120.

    Summary: The USCG Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application form is used to collect applicant qualification information associated with vacancy announcements. The form allows individuals to apply for employment opportunities with the Coast Guard Non-appropriated Fund (NAF) workforce and fills the gap created by the cancellation of the Optional Application for Federal Employment, Form OF-612, OMB No. 3206-0219.

    Need: The U.S. Coast Guard rates applicants under the authority of Title 5 of U.S. Code, Sections 301, 1104, 1302, 3301, and 3304. The Optional Application for Federal Employment, Form OF-612, was cancelled and the information is now collected in USA Jobs. The NAF personnel system does not utilize USA Jobs because of the high cost and high turnover rate and thus relied heavily on form OF-612 for applicants.

    Forms: CG-1227B, Non-Appropriated Fund Employment Application.

    Respondents: Public applying for positions with the USCG Non-appropriated Fund Workforce.

    Frequency: Per vacancy announcements.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 8,400 hours to 3,837 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of respondents.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. James D. Roppel, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01779 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0125] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0121 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information without change: 1625-0121, United States Coast Guard Academy Introduction Mission Program Application and Supplemental Forms. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0125] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0125], and must be received by March 1, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0121.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 55386, November 21, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

    Information Collection Request

    Title: United States Coast Guard Academy Introduction Mission Program Application and Supplemental Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0121.

    Summary: This collection contains the application and all supplemental forms required to be considered as an applicant to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy Introduction Mission (AIM) Program.

    Need: The information is needed to select applicants for participation in a one-week summer recruiting and training program for prospective Cadets interested in attending the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

    Forms: USCGA-AIM1, Travel update; USCGA-AIM2, Scholarship Request; USCGA-AIM3, Medical Release; Online Application; High School Transcript; and Personal Reference.

    Respondents: Approximately 2,000 applicants apply annually to attend the AIM Program. Approximately 3,000 individuals will submit letters of recommendation for these applicants.

    Frequency: Applicants must apply only once per year.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 9,000 annual hours.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. James D. Roppel, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01778 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0902] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0020 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0020, Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas, and Safety Zones. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0902] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0902], and must be received by March 1, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0020.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49636, October 26, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

    Information Collection Request

    Title: Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas, and Safety Zones.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0020.

    Summary: The Coast Guard collects this information only when someone seeks a security zone, regulated navigation area, or safety zone. It uses the information to assess the need to establish one of these areas.

    Need: Section 1226 and 1231 of 33 U.S.C. and 50 U.S.C. 191 and 195, and part 6 and 165 of 33 CFR give the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) the authority to designate security zones in the U.S. for as long as the COTP deems necessary to prevent damage or injury. Section 1223 of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe rules to control vessel traffic in areas he or she deems hazardous because of reduced visibility, adverse weather, or vessel congestion. Section 1225 of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to establish rules to allow the designation of safety zones where access is limited to authorized persons, vehicles, or vessels to protect the public from hazardous situations.

    Forms: None.

    Respondents: Federal, State, and local government agencies, owners and operators of vessels and facilities.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 413 hours to 178 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of respondents.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. James D. Roppel, Acting Chief, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01730 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4345-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4345-DR), dated October 16, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on January 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of William J. Doran III as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01774 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The date of June 6, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 9, 2018. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Flagler County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1644 City of Bunnell City Hall, 201 West Moody Boulevard, Bunnell, FL 32110. City of Flagler Beach City Hall, 105 South 2nd Street, Flagler Beach, FL 32136. City of Palm Coast City Hall, 160 Lake Avenue, Palm Coast, FL 32164. Town of Beverly Beach Town Hall, 2735 North Oceanshore Boulevard, Beverly Beach, FL 32136. Town of Marineland Marineland Town Office, 9507 North Oceanshore Boulevard, St. Augustine, FL 32080. Unincorporated Areas of Flagler County Flagler County Planning and Zoning Department, 1769 East Moody Boulevard, Building 2, Bunnell, FL 32110. Wells County, North Dakota and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1671 City of Harvey City Hall, 120 West 8th Street, Harvey, ND 58341. Unincorporated Areas of Wells County Wells County Courthouse, 700 Railway Street North, Number 37, Fessenden, ND 58438.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01766 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4355-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4355-DR), dated January 2, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued January 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 2, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Hampshire resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the period of October 29 to November 1, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Hampshire.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Belknap, Carroll, Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of New Hampshire are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01768 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4353-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] California; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California (FEMA-4353-DR), dated January 2, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued January 12, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 2, 2018.

    Los Angeles and San Diego Counties for Individual Assistance.

    Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01767 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4354-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Maine; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-4354-DR), dated January 2, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued January 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 2, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Maine resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the period of October 29 to November 1, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Maine.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cumberland, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Sagadahoc, Somerset, Waldo, and York Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Maine are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01769 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4277-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Louisiana; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4277-DR), dated August 14, 2016, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on January 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of William J. Doran III as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01773 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3382-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3382-EM), dated August 28, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on January 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    This action terminates the appointment of William J. Doran III as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01776 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4348-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New York (FEMA-4348-DR), dated November 14, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued January 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 14, 2017.

    Cayuga and Monroe Counties for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01777 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2018-0004; OMB No. 1660-0085] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program which provides funding in response to a State's request for crisis counseling services for a presidentially declared major disaster.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2018-0004. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Voorhies, Lead, Community Services Individual Assistance/Recovery, [email protected] You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 416 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (Pub. L. 93-288, as amended) (“Stafford Act”), authorizes the President to provide professional counseling services, including financial assistance to States, U.S. Territories, Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments, local agencies or private mental health organizations for professional counseling services to survivors of major disasters to relieve mental health problems caused or aggravated by a major disaster or its aftermath. FEMA codified Section 416 of the Stafford Act at section 44 CFR 206.171 entitled Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training. Under Section 416 of the Stafford Act and 44 CFR 206.171, the President has designated the Department of Health and Human Services-Center for Mental Health Services (HHS-CMHS) to coordinate with FEMA in administering the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). FEMA and HHS-CMHS signed an interagency agreement under which HHS-CMHS provides program oversight, technical assistance and training to States applying for CCP funding.

    FEMA is proposing to revise the collection by removing the option A from question 8 on the CCP/ISP Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Immediate Services Program Application/FEMA Form 003-0-1 and option A from question 12 on the CCP/RSP Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Regular Services Program Application/FEMA Form 003-0-2. The removal of this option from both forms will result in a minor hour burden reduction of 3.9 hours. FEMA welcomes input from the public on the removal of option A from both forms, which allows the State to use their own method to estimate the population to be served, as well as the estimated burden hour reduction of 3.9 hours.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0085.

    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 003-0-1, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Immediate Services Program Application; FEMA Form 003-0-2, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Regular Services Program Application; SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs; SF-425, Federal Financial Report; HHS Checklist/08-2007; HHS Project Performance Site Location Form; ISP report narrative; Quarterly Report Narratives; Final RSP Report Narrative,.

    Abstract: The CCP consists of two grant programs, the Immediate Services Program (ISP) and the Regular Services Program (RSP). The ISP and the RSP provide supplemental funding to States, U.S. Territories, and Federally recognized Tribes following a Presidentially-declared disaster. The grant programs provide funding for Training and Services, including community outreach, public education, and counseling techniques. States are required to submit an application that provides information on Needs Assessment, Plan of Service, Program Management, and an accompanying Budget.

    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 150.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 165.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1511.1.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $116,010.

    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $120,735.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. William H. Holzerland, Sr. Director for Information Management, Mission Support, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01765 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3392-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3392-EM), dated October 6, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The change occurred on January 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    This action terminates the appointment of William J. Doran III as Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01775 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice publishes the current list of 567 Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes. The list is updated from the notice published on January 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. Published below is an updated list of federally acknowledged Indian Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska, to reflect various name changes and corrections.

    Amendments to the list include name changes and name corrections. To aid in identifying tribal name changes and corrections, the Tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current tribal name. We will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.

    The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately for the purpose of facilitating identification of them.

    Dated: January 11, 2018. John Tahsuda, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Exercising the Functions, Duties, and Responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. Indian Tribal Entities Within the Contiguous 48 States Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona) Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas) Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Alturas Indian Rancheria, California Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Aroostook Band of Micmacs (previously listed as the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians) Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation) Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Big Lagoon Rancheria, California Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California) Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California) Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California) Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Blue Lake Rancheria, California Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California) Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon) Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, California Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria Cahuilla Band of Indians (previously listed as the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, California) California Valley Miwok Tribe, California Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California) Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina) Cayuga Nation Cedarville Rancheria, California Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California Cherokee Nation Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana) Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Coeur D'Alene Tribe (previously listed as the Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho) Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California Comanche Nation, Oklahoma Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation) Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon) Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Coquille Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Coquille Tribe of Oregon) Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (previously listed as the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon) Cowlitz Indian Tribe Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Crow Tribe of Montana Death Valley Timbi-sha Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California) Delaware Nation, Oklahoma Delaware Tribe of Indians Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming (previously listed as the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming) Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria, California Elk Valley Rancheria, California Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Greenville Rancheria (previously listed as the Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California) Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians of California Guidiville Rancheria of California Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Hoh Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian Reservation, Washington) Hoopa Valley Tribe, California Hopi Tribe of Arizona Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, California (formerly Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria, California) Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California (previously listed as the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation) Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California) Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Jamul Indian Village of California Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Karuk Tribe (previously listed as the Karuk Tribe of California) Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, California Kaw Nation, Oklahoma Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Kialegee Tribal Town Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Klamath Tribes Kletsel Dehe Band of Wintun Indians (previously listed as the Cortina Indian Rancheria and the Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California) Koi Nation of Northern California (previously listed as the Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Kootenai Tribe of Idaho La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California (previously listed as the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla Reservation) La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California) Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, California (previously listed as the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians of the Los Coyotes Reservation) Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Lower Elwha Tribal Community (previously listed as the Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington) Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Lytton Rancheria of California Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester Rancheria, California (previously listed as the Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria, California) Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut) Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.) Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, California Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (previously listed as Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut) Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington) Narragansett Indian Tribe Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho) Nisqually Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington) Nooksack Indian Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (previously listed as Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation and the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie)) Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.) Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota) Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan) Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Oneida Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin) Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York) Onondaga Nation Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)) Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada Pala Band of Mission Indians (previously listed as the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation, California) Pamunkey Indian Tribe Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California Passamaquoddy Tribe Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California Penobscot Nation (previously listed as the Penobscot Tribe of Maine) Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California Pinoleville Pomo Nation, California (previously listed as the Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Pit River Tribe, California (includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, Likely, Lookout, Montgomery Creek and Roaring Creek Rancherias) Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama) Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (previously listed as the Port Gamble Band of S'Klallam Indians) Potter Valley Tribe, California Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas) Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation of California Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Quinault Indian Nation (previously listed as the Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington) Ramona Band of Cahuilla, California (previously listed as the Ramona Band or Village of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California) Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Redding Rancheria, California Redwood Valley or Little River Band of Pomo Indians of the Redwood Valley Rancheria California (previously listed as the Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada Resighini Rancheria, California Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation, California Robinson Rancheria (previously listed as the Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California and the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Round Valley Indian Tribes, Round Valley Reservation, California (previously listed as the Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California) Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington) San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation) San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Santa Rosa Reservation) Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)) Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York) Seneca—Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma) Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Shawnee Tribe Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California Shinnecock Indian Nation Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation, Washington) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Skokomish Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington) Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington) Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington) Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Susanville Indian Rancheria, California Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington) Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California) Tejon Indian Tribe Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band) The Chickasaw Nation The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma The Muscogee (Creek) Nation The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) The Quapaw Tribe of Indians The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (previously listed as the Smith River Rancheria, California) Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York) Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as the Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California) Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington) Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Tuscarora Nation Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah) Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches) White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma Wilton Rancheria, California Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada Wiyot Tribe, California (previously listed as the Table Bluff Reservation—Wiyot Tribe) Wyandotte Nation Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, California (previously listed as the Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California) Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas) Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico Native Entities Within the State of Alaska Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove Akiachak Native Community Akiak Native Community Alatna Village Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's) Allakaket Village Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor (previously listed as Native Village of Old Harbor and Village of Old Harbor) Angoon Community Association Anvik Village Arctic Village (See Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government) Asa'carsarmiut Tribe Atqasuk Village (Atkasook) Beaver Village Birch Creek Tribe Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes Chalkyitsik Village Cheesh-Na Tribe (previously listed as the Native Village of Chistochina) Chevak Native Village Chickaloon Native Village Chignik Bay Tribal Council (previously listed as the Native Village of Chignik) Chignik Lake Village Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan) Chilkoot Indian Association (Haines) Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin) Chuloonawick Native Village Circle Native Community Craig Tribal Association (previously listed as the Craig Community Association) Curyung Tribal Council Douglas Indian Association Egegik Village Eklutna Native Village Emmonak Village Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field) Galena Village (aka Louden Village) Gulkana Village Healy Lake Village Holy Cross Village Hoonah Indian Association Hughes Village Huslia Village Hydaburg Cooperative Association Igiugig Village Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope Iqurmuit Traditional Council Ivanof Bay Tribe (previously listed as the Ivanoff Bay Tribe and the Ivanoff Bay Village) Kaguyak Village Kaktovik Village (aka Barter Island) Kasigluk Traditional Elders Council Kenaitze Indian Tribe Ketchikan Indian Corporation King Island Native Community King Salmon Tribe Klawock Cooperative Association Knik Tribe Kokhanok Village Koyukuk Native Village Levelock Village Lime Village Manley Hot Springs Village Manokotak Village McGrath Native Village Mentasta Traditional Council Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve Naknek Native Village Native Village of Afognak Native Village of Akhiok Native Village of Akutan Native Village of Aleknagik Native Village of Ambler Native Village of Atka Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government Native Village of Belkofski Native Village of Brevig Mission Native Village of Buckland Native Village of Cantwell Native Village of Chenega (aka Chanega) Native Village of Chignik Lagoon Native Village of Chitina Native Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim) Native Village of Council Native Village of Deering Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik) Native Village of Eagle Native Village of Eek Native Village of Ekuk Native Village of Ekwok (previously listed as Ekwok Village) Native Village of Elim Native Village of Eyak (Cordova) Native Village of False Pass Native Village of Fort Yukon Native Village of Gakona Native Village of Gambell Native Village of Georgetown Native Village of Goodnews Bay Native Village of Hamilton Native Village of Hooper Bay Native Village of Kanatak Native Village of Karluk Native Village of Kiana Native Village of Kipnuk Native Village of Kivalina Native Village of Kluti Kaah (aka Copper Center) Native Village of Kobuk Native Village of Kongiganak Native Village of Kotzebue Native Village of Koyuk Native Village of Kwigillingok Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak) Native Village of Larsen Bay Native Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna Ledge) Native Village of Mary's Igloo Native Village of Mekoryuk Native Village of Minto Native Village of Nanwalek (aka English Bay) Native Village of Napaimute Native Village of Napakiak Native Village of Napaskiak Native Village of Nelson Lagoon Native Village of Nightmute Native Village of Nikolski Native Village of Noatak Native Village of Nuiqsut (aka Nooiksut) Native Village of Nunam Iqua (previously listed as the Native Village of Sheldon's Point) Native Village of Nunapitchuk Native Village of Ouzinkie Native Village of Paimiut Native Village of Perryville Native Village of Pilot Point Native Village of Pitka's Point Native Village of Point Hope Native Village of Point Lay Native Village of Port Graham Native Village of Port Heiden Native Village of Port Lions Native Village of Ruby Native Village of Saint Michael Native Village of Savoonga Native Village of Scammon Bay Native Village of Selawik Native Village of Shaktoolik Native Village of Shishmaref Native Village of Shungnak Native Village of Stevens Native Village of Tanacross Native Village of Tanana Native Village of Tatitlek Native Village of Tazlina Native Village of Teller Native Village of Tetlin Native Village of Tuntutuliak Native Village of Tununak Native Village of Tyonek Native Village of Unalakleet Native Village of Unga Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Arctic Village and Village of Venetie) Native Village of Wales Native Village of White Mountain Nenana Native Association New Koliganek Village Council New Stuyahok Village Newhalen Village Newtok Village Nikolai Village Ninilchik Village Nome Eskimo Community Nondalton Village Noorvik Native Community Northway Village Nulato Village Nunakauyarmiut Tribe Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk) Organized Village of Kake Organized Village of Kasaan Organized Village of Kwethluk Organized Village of Saxman Orutsararmiut Traditional Native Council (previously listed as Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel)) Oscarville Traditional Village Pauloff Harbor Village Pedro Bay Village Petersburg Indian Association Pilot Station Traditional Village Platinum Traditional Village Portage Creek Village (aka Ohgsenakale) Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska Rampart Village Saint George Island (See Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands) Saint Paul Island (See Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands) Seldovia Village Tribe Shageluk Native Village Sitka Tribe of Alaska Skagway Village South Naknek Village Stebbins Community Association Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak (previously listed as the Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak) Takotna Village Tangirnaq Native Village (formerly Lesnoi Village (aka Woody Island)) Telida Village Traditional Village of Togiak Tuluksak Native Community Twin Hills Village Ugashik Village Umkumiut Native Village (previously listed as Umkumiute Native Village) Village of Alakanuk Village of Anaktuvuk Pass Village of Aniak Village of Atmautluak Village of Bill Moore's Slough Village of Chefornak Village of Clarks Point Village of Crooked Creek Village of Dot Lake Village of Iliamna Village of Kalskag Village of Kaltag Village of Kotlik Village of Lower Kalskag Village of Ohogamiut Village of Red Devil Village of Salamatoff Village of Sleetmute Village of Solomon Village of Stony River Village of Venetie (See Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government) Village of Wainwright Wrangell Cooperative Association Yakutat Tlingit Tribe Yupiit of Andreafski
    [FR Doc. 2018-01907 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Public Meetings of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a three day meeting of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC).

    DATES:

    Meeting of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee: Tuesday, February 27, 2018: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, February 28, 2018: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, March 1, 2018; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Smithsonian Institution National Museum of the American Indian, 4th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20560. The general session will be held in the Conference Center (4th Floor). Note: All meeting participants and interested members of the public must register their attendance online at www.invasivespecies.gov. Attendees must pass through security screening upon entering the facility.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelsey Brantley, National Invasive Species Council Program Specialist and ISAC Coordinator, Phone: (202) 208-4122; Fax: (202) 208-4118, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comprised of 12 non-federal members, the purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide information and advice for consideration by the Council, as authorized by Executive Order 13112 as amended by Executive Order 13751. The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) is the interdepartmental body charged with providing the vision and leadership necessary to coordinate, sustain, and expand federal efforts to safeguard the interests of the United States through the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species, as well as the restoration of ecosystems and other assets impacted by invasive species.

    The Council is co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to convene the ISAC in a manner that enables it to provide information and advice for consideration by NISC on matters related to NISC priorities. The meeting will take place over a three day period with each day having a unique agenda that, collectively, enable a combination of public input and focused ISAC discussions that ultimately result in the provision of advice to NISC. The first day of the meeting (February 27th) will be carried out through a NISC Stakeholders Forum convened as two 2.5 hour public listening sessions that invite responses to the following questions from private sector, academic, and non-governmental perspectives (Session 1), as well as from state, territory, and tribal perspectives (Session 2):

    1. How can NISC help advance cooperative federalism—an approach in which national, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments work together to solve our shared invasive species challenges—in order to better protect our nation's biodiversity, land and water resources, public health, and other assets?

    2. How can NISC facilitate more effective partnerships with the private sector in order to reduce the risks of invasive species crossing U.S. borders?

    3. What are the highest priority opportunities to streamline federal regulatory procedures to make it easier and more cost-effective for various sectors of society to prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species?

    4. How can NISC facilitate the mobilization of non-native species data into public information systems in order to improve decision support capacities at all levels of government and for the private sector?

    5. How can NISC foster the development and application of innovative tools and technologies to enable the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species in a more timely and effective manner?

    Written responses to these questions will be accepted from the public until the close of business on February 16, 2018. Correspondence should be directed to Kelsey Brantley at the address listed at the end of this notice. Electronic submission is strongly preferred. ISAC will consider these responses when preparing its advice to NISC.

    On the second day of the meeting, ISAC members will work together to summarize the key findings from the NISC Stakeholders Forum and draft advice to the Council based on these findings. On the third day of the meeting, ISAC will present its preliminary findings and advice to a Federal and State Leadership Roundtable comprised of NISC members, state and territory Governors, and directors of selected multi-state associations. Roundtable participants will discuss ISAC's input and provide feedback to ISAC. ISAC will then meet to discuss the outcomes of the Roundtable and revise its findings and advice as deemed appropriate, with the intent of adopting an advisory Memorandum to NISC by the close of the meeting. The meeting agenda will be available on the NISC website at http://www.invasivespecies.gov. All reference materials will be posted on or about Tuesday, February 20, 2018.

    Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council (NISC).
    [FR Doc. 2018-01538 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLAZP01000.L12200000.EA0000; AZ-SRP-AZA-036683] Notice of Temporary Closure of Public Lands in Maricopa County, AZ AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of closure.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a temporary closure will be in effect on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Hassayampa Field Office, during the Vulture Mine Off-Road Challenge official permitted off-highway vehicle (OHV) race events.

    DATES:

    These closures will be in effect from 2 p.m., February 9, 2018, through 10 p.m., February 11, 2018, Mountain Standard Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    This temporary closure or restriction order will be posted in the Phoenix District Office, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027. Maps of the affected area and other documents associated with this temporary closure are available at Hassayampa Field Office, which is located at the same address as the Phoenix District Office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John (Jake) Szympruch, District Chief Ranger; telephone 623-580-5500; email: [email protected]; or Rem Hawes, Hassayampa Field Office Manager; telephone 623-580-5500; email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individuals during normal business hours. FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The temporary closure affects certain public lands within the Vulture Mine Recreation Management Zone in Maricopa County, Arizona. This action is being taken to help ensure public safety during the Vulture Mine Off-Road Challenge official permitted OHV race events.

    The BLM will post temporary closure signs at main entry points to this area. This event is authorized on public land under a Special Recreation Permit, in conformance with the Wickenburg Travel Management Plan and the Bradshaw-Harquahala Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Under the authority of Section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)), 43 CFR 8360.0-7, and 43 CFR 8364.1, the BLM will enforce the following temporary closure and restrictions within Vulture Mine Recreation Zone.

    Description of Race Course Closed Area: Areas subject to this temporary closure include all public lands situated within the interior of the race course as well as the race course. The race course begins at the intersection of BLM routes 9092F and 9090C traveling east along 9090C to 9090D going south and then east along 9090D to 9090; continue traveling along 9090 north to 9093A to 9274 traveling northeast to 9094, traveling southeast to 9195 to 9286, then traveling northeast to 9196, to 9192 then to route 9095 traveling north and west to 9089C to 9089A north to 9092B west to 9092 to 9092F and south returning to the beginning intersection with 9090C.

    Closure: The designated race course and all areas within the boundary of the race course as described above are temporarily closed to public entry during the temporary closure.

    Exceptions to Closure: The temporary closure does not apply to Federal, State, and local officers and employees in the performance of their official duties; members of organized rescue or fire-fighting forces in the performance of their official duties; persons with written authorization for the period of the race event from the BLM; and designated race officials, participants, pit crews, or persons operating on their behalf.

    Enforcement: Any person who violates the temporary closure may be tried before a United States magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Arizona law.

    Effect of Closure: The entire area encompassed by the designated race course and all areas within the race course as described above and in the time period as described above are temporarily closed to all public use, including pedestrian use and vehicles, unless specifically excepted as described above.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 8364.1.

    Rem Hawes, Field Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01764 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024298; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, previously listed as the Office of the State Archaeologist Burials Program, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, Iowa City, IA. The human remains were removed from Grant and Richland Counties, WI.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake), Fond du Lac Band, Grand Portage Band, Leech Lake Band, Mille Lacs Band, White Earth Band); Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

    Representatives of the Wahpekute Band of Dakota, a non-federally recognized group, were also involved in the consultation.

    History and Description of the Remains

    At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of five individuals were removed from an unknown location south of Potosi, in Grant County, WI. The human remains were collected from the bank of the Mississippi River by a high school student, and were donated to the Mississippi River Museum in Dubuque, IA, on June 12, 1975 (accession #75-83.2). These human remains were transferred to the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program in 1995. A middle-aged to old adult and an old adult, both of indeterminate sex, are represented by the human remains. Also present are three individuals aged 0.5 to 2.5 years, 5 to 9 years, and 9 to 15 years (Burial Project 910). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an unspecified mound, possibly near Garner Lake in Richland County, WI. The human remains were given to Richard Herrmann by Herman Bieg. At an unknown date, the human remains were donated to the Ham House Museum in Dubuque, IA. In 1986, the human remains were transferred to the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program. A female between the ages of 25 and 45 years is represented by the human remains. Cranial metrics and dental morphology support the identification of this individual as Native American (Burial Project 655). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Osteological analyses indicate the human remains are Native American. However, these human remains cannot be dated or attributed to a particular archeological context in Wisconsin and cannot be affiliated with any present-day Indian Tribe or group.

    Determinations Made by the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program

    Officials of the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on cranial metrics, dental morphology, and provenience.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 6 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

    • According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Consulted Tribes.

    • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Consulted Tribes.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Consulted Tribes.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Consulted Tribes may proceed.

    The Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Editor's Note:

    This document was received at the office of the Federal Register On January 25, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01711 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024745; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Peabody Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT. The human remains were removed from the Arikaree Fork of the Republican River, Cheyenne County, KS.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Peabody Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.

    History and Description of the Remains

    At some time prior to 1871, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Arikaree Fork of the Republican River in Cheyenne County, KS. The human remains, that of an adult male, were donated to the Peabody Museum in 1871 by Dr. W.H. King, the post surgeon stationed at Fort Wallace, KS. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Peabody Museum records identify this individual as Native American and Arapaho. The condition of the human remains suggests cleaning occurred immediately after death, a common 19th century practice at U.S. military forts in the west. U.S. soldiers and fort personnel routinely collected the remains of recently deceased Native Americans to send back east for preservation in museums and universities. The treatment of these human remains is consistent with that practice.

    At the time of donation, these human remains were identified as Arapaho. The descendants of the Arapaho of the 19th century are members of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma).

    Determinations Made by the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University

    Officials of the Peabody Museum of Natural History have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752, by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma), may proceed.

    The Peabody Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma), that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 8, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01729 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024613; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: History Colorado, Formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    History Colorado, formerly Colorado Historical Society, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to History Colorado. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to History Colorado at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of History Colorado, Denver, CO, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In the winter of 1888-1889, 13 cultural items were removed from burials in the Mesa Verde area in Montezuma County, CO, by Richard Wetherill, Al Wetherill, and Charlie Mason. The cultural items were removed from Cliff Palace, Spruce Tree, Square Tower, Balcony, Mummy, Spring, Long, Mug, High, Kodak, and Step Houses, and other cliff dwellings and mesa top ruins in Navajo, Acowitz, Johnson, Grass, Mancos, Weber, and Moccasin Canyons. History Colorado purchased the collection in 1889. The 13 unassociated funerary objects are 1 black-on-white bowl, 1 cotton cloth fragment, 4 turkey feather blankets or fragments, 1 cordage fragment, 2 arrow fragments, 3 willow reed burial mats, and 1 twill-plaited mat. The associated human remains were not collected. Based on material culture and site architecture, the sites where the objects were collected were occupied during the Pueblo II-III periods, A.D. 900-1300.

    In 1892, 59 cultural items were removed from burials in the Mesa Verde area in Montezuma County, CO, by Arthur Wilmarth, D.W. Ayers, and Al and/or Richard Wetherill. The cultural items were removed largely from Step House, but also from Cliff Palace, Tower, Balcony, Mug, Mummy, and Spruce Tree Houses. This collection was funded by the Colorado State Legislature to be part of Colorado's exhibit at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The collection was transferred to the Colorado Historical Society after the Exposition. The 59 unassociated funerary objects are 16 black-on-white bowls, 8 black-on-white or grayware jars, 4 black-on-white mugs, 7 black-on-white ladles, 2 black-on-white pot lids, 1 black-on-white effigy jar, 1 black-on-white canteen, 5 black-on-white pitchers, 1 bone awl, 2 wood pillows, 1 bow, 4 arrow fragments, 2 turkey feather blanket fragments, 3 willow reed burial mats, 1 twill-plaited mat fragment and 1 bone bead. The associated human remains were not collected. Based on material culture and site architecture, the sites where the objects were collected were occupied during the Pueblo II-III periods, A.D. 900-1300.

    In the winter of 1888-1889 or in 1892, six cultural items were removed from burials in the Mesa Verde area in Montezuma County, CO, by the above collectors. Incomplete museum records do not allow determination of specifically who collected the cultural items. The six unassociated funerary objects are 1 piki mold, 1 turkey feather blanket, and 4 willow reed burial mats. Based on material culture, these artifacts were produced during the Pueblo II-III periods, A.D. 900-1300 or earlier.

    In 1917, one cultural item was removed from a grave west of Golden in Jefferson County, CO, by staff from the State Highway Commission during work operations. The cultural item was transferred to History Colorado in 1918. The unassociated funerary object, 1 Olivella shell necklace, was identified as Ancestral Puebloan during consultations. The associated human remains were not removed.

    Between 1921 and 1924, three cultural items were removed from a burial context in a pithouse on private property in Archuleta County, CO, by History Colorado Curator Jean A. Jeancon and Frank H.H. Roberts, an instructor at University of Denver, both of whom conducted archeological investigations at and around Chimney Rock Pueblo in Archuleta County, CO. The three unassociated funerary objects are 1 black-on-white mountain sheep figurine and 2 clay pipes. The associated human remains were not removed. Site architecture and material culture indicate the items were made sometime in the Pueblo I-III periods, A.D. 750-1300.

    In 1928, 40 cultural items were removed from a burial context on private land known as Herren Farm (5MT726) in Montezuma County, CO, by Paul S. Martin. Mr. Martin was employed as a curator by History Colorado for archeological reconnaissance, survey and excavation in southwest Colorado. The 40 unassociated funerary objects are 2 corrugated cooking jars, 1 black-on-white jar, 12 black-on-white bowls, 16 black-on-white mugs, 6 black-on-white ladles, 1 black-on-white seed jar, 1 black-on-white pitcher, and 1 canine jaw. The associated human remains were not collected. Based on material culture and site architecture the site was occupied during the Pueblo II-III periods, A.D. 900-1300.

    In 1928, 28 cultural items were removed from private land identified as Charnal House Tower in Montezuma County, CO, by Paul S. Martin. The 28 unassociated funerary objects are 11 corrugated cooking jars, 1 black-on-white jar, 3 black-on-white bowls, 5 black-on-white mugs, 1 black-on-white ladle, 1 black-on-white seed jar, 1 stone slab, 1 reed burial mat fragment, 1 bone necklace, 1 pair of shell earrings, and 2 stone pendants. The associated human remains were not collected. Based on material culture and site architecture the site was occupied during the Pueblo II-III periods, A.D. 900-1300.

    In 1929, 17 cultural items were removed from a burial context on private land known as Little Dog Ruin (5MT13403) in Montezuma County, CO, by Paul S. Martin. The 17 unassociated funerary objects are 3 black-on-white seed jars, 5 black-on-white bowls, 4 black-on-white mugs, 1 black-on-white ladle, 1 black-on-white effigy jar, and 3 black-on-white pitchers. The associated human remains were not removed. Based on material culture and site architecture the site was occupied during the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods, A.D. 500-900.

    In 1929, nine cultural items were removed from a burial context on private land known as Pigg Site (5MT4802) in Montezuma County, CO, by Paul S. Martin. The nine unassociated funerary objects are 2 black-on-white bowls, 1 black-on-red bowl, 3 black-on-white mugs, 1 black-on-white ladle, 1 black-on-white pot lid and 1 black-on-white seed jar. The associated human remains were not removed. Based on material culture and site architecture the site was occupied during the Pueblo II-III periods, A.D. 900-1300.

    At some time prior to 1933, four cultural items were removed from a burial context at an unspecified site near Durango in La Plata County, CO, by Fred Johnson. The cultural items were donated to History Colorado in 1933. The four unassociated funerary objects are 1 grayware seed jar, 1 grayware bowl, 1 grayware pitcher and 1 sandstone concretion. The associated human remains were not removed. Pottery attributes indicate these were made during the Pueblo I-III periods, A.D. 750-1300.

    At some time prior to 1935, 11 cultural items were removed from a burial context at an unspecified site on private property at the head of Yellow Jacket Canyon in Montezuma County, CO, by Homer S. Root, a minister from Durango, CO. In 1935, History Colorado purchased the cultural items. The 11 unassociated funerary objects are 5 black-on-white bowls, 4 black-on-white mugs, and 2 black-on-white ladles. Pottery attributes indicate the cultural items were made during the Pueblo III period, A.D. 1150-1300. The associated human remains were not removed.

    At some time prior to 1935, 10 unassociated funerary objects were removed from a burial context at a burial context on an unspecified site on private property in Blue Mesa in La Plata County, CO, by Homer S. Root. In 1935, History Colorado purchased the cultural items. The 10 unassociated funerary objects are 4 black-on-white bowls, 1 grayware mug, 1 grayware jar, 1 grayware double vessel, and 3 grayware pitchers. The associated human remains were not removed. Pottery attributes indicate the cultural items were made during the Basketmaker III/Pueblo I periods, A.D. 500-900.

    At some time prior to 1935, two unassociated funerary objects were removed from a burial context at an unspecified site on private property in Florida Mesa in La Plata County, CO, by Homer S. Root. In 1935, History Colorado purchased the cultural items. The two unassociated funerary objects are 1 grayware pitcher and 1 lot of Olivella shell beads. The associated human remains were not removed. Pottery attributes indicate the cultural items were made during the Basketmaker III/Pueblo I periods, A.D. 500-900.

    At some time prior to 1935, nine unassociated funerary objects were removed from a burial context at an unspecified site on private property in Wild Horse Canyon in La Plata County, CO, by Homer S. Root. In 1935, History Colorado purchased the cultural items. The nine unassociated funerary objects are 3 black-on-white bowls, 2 black-on-red bowls, 1 red ware jar, 2 grayware jars, and 1 grayware pitcher. The associated human remains were not removed. Pottery attributes indicate the cultural items were made during the Basketmaker III/Pueblo I periods, A.D. 500-900.

    At some time prior to 1943, four cultural items were removed from burial contexts at unspecified sites in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, or Utah by James Mellinger. Mr. Mellinger willed his collection to History Colorado in 1943, and it was transferred to History Colorado in 1967. The four unassociated funerary objects are 1 grayware jar and 1 black-on-white bowl from Blue Mesa, CO, 1 turkey feather blanket from an unspecified site, and 1 twill-plaited basket from the Grand Gulch, UT, area. The associated human remains were not collected. Pottery attributes of two items indicate they were made in the Basketmaker/Pueblo I period, A.D. 500-900. The other two items lack sufficient context to date them.

    At some time prior to 1956, two cultural items were removed from a burial context at an unspecified site in the Dove Creek area in Dolores County, CO, by Virgil Mathews. The cultural items were donated to History Colorado in 1956. The two unassociated funerary objects are 1 black-on-white pitcher, and 1 grayware bowl. The associated human remains were not collected. Pottery attributes of the two items indicate they were made in the Pueblo II period, A.D. 900-1150.

    At some time prior to 1967, one cultural item was removed from a burial context at an unspecified site in Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, UT, by an unknown person, later purchased by Vida Ellison, and willed to History Colorado in 1967 as part of an archeological collection. The one unassociated funerary object is 1 mud ware bowl. Pottery attributes indicate it was made in the Basketmaker III period, A.D. 500-750.

    At some time prior to 1987, one cultural item was removed by an unknown person from a burial context at an unspecified site and accessioned into the History Colorado collection in 1987. The unassociated funerary object is 1 black-on-white seed jar. The associated remains were not collected. Pottery attributes indicate it was made in the Pueblo II period, A.D. 900-1150.

    At an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from burial contexts at unspecified sites and placed into the History Colorado collection. The two cultural items are 1 turkey feather blanket fragment and 1 corrugated cooking jar. Attributes of both cultural items indicate they were made in the Pueblo I-III period, A.D. 750-1300.

    The cultural affiliation of these unassociated funerary objects with present-day Native Americans was determined through the use of the following lines of evidence: geographical, kinship, biological, archeological, anthropological, linguistic, oral tradition, historical and expert opinion. Evidence was gathered from consultations with Indian Tribes, physical examination, survey of acquisition history, review of pertinent archeological, ethnographic, historic, anthropological and linguistic literature, and artifact analysis. Similarities in site architecture and material culture associated with the unassociated funerary objects are consistent with Ancestral Puebloan occupation of the southwestern United States, from the Basketmaker I period through the Pueblo III period (between approximately 1000 B.C. and A.D. 1300). Ancestral Puebloan ceramic typologies and perishables analyses helped to identify chronological and geographical technological traditions. After approximately A.D. 1300, multiple factors caused Pueblo populations to leave the Four Corners region and resettle in Pueblos along the Northern Rio Grande and in the Pueblos of Acoma, Zuni, Ysleta del Sur, and Hopi. Extant oral traditions corroborate dynamic population movements within the region during this time.

    Determinations Made by History Colorado

    Officials of History Colorado have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), and based on existing museum documentation, the 222 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Culturally Affiliated Tribes”).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to The Culturally Affiliated Tribes may proceed.

    History Colorado is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah); Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: November 1, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01724 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024672; PCU00RP14.R50000-PPWOCRADN0] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In 1950, 12 cultural items were removed from burial contexts in an unnamed ruin in Mancos Canyon, Montezuma County, CO, located on Indian trust lands. Original field notes taken by Cliff Chappell state: “Large Ruin in Mancos Canyon, 12 1/2 miles from Gallup rd. just below picture rock. Ward Emerson & Myself. 4/28/50. Dug by Cliff Chappell. [Artifacts 525A through 525G] found loose in the 1st ruin 4 1/2 miles from Gallup rd. at Leimbach picnic site S. of rd.” In 1983, the Anasazi Historical Society (AHS) purchased the “Chappell Collection” from the Chappell family and the collection was placed on loan by the AHS at the Bureau of Land Management—Anasazi Heritage Center. In 2016, these 12 items were identified as being removed from burial contexts on Indian lands. The Bureau of Indian Affairs asserted control of the items and notified potentially affiliated Tribes. The 12 unassociated funerary objects are 1 ceramic bowl, 2 ceramic pitchers, 1 stone spindle whorl, 2 chert side-notched projectile points, 3 stone pendant blanks, 1 hammerstone, 1 tether stone, and 1 piece of unworked petrified wood.

    Archeological findings indicate that the Hopi are the direct descendants of the Prehistoric Ancestral Puebloan inhabitants of the Four Corners region. Published accounts of Hopi oral traditions say that ancestors of some Hopi clans migrated from north and east of the Hopi Mesas, including the general vicinity of Mancos Canyon and the Mesa Verde region, either directly or indirectly by way of the Eastern Pueblos. Migrations of people from the Eastern Pueblos to Hopi are substantiated in the archeological record and in ethnohistorical accounts. The puebloan ruins of Montezuma County show the greatest affinity to the Mesa Verde branch. (Cultural Affiliation Study for Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Southwest Colorado, Gilpin, et al. 2002:121). The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office of the Hopi Tribe asserts cultural affiliation to these objects.

    Determinations Made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 12 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona may proceed.

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona that this notice has been published.

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Sarah Glass, Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01727 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024522; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum) and Central Washington University (CWU) have completed an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and this associated funerary object should submit a written request to the Burke Museum or CWU. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and this associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Burke Museum or Central Washington University at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849 x2, email [email protected], or Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, 400 East University Way, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544, telephone (509) 963-2671, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object under the control of the Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from Birch Bay, Whatcom County, WA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Burke Museum and Central Washington University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1933, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Birch Bay in Whatcom County, WA. The human remains and an associated funerary object were removed from a “shell heap” by David Eastman, and were donated to the Burke Museum in 1933 (Burke Accn. #2658). In 1974, the Burke Museum transferred the human remains to Central Washington University (CWU ID #BO). No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a bone wedge, and it is still in the possession of the Burke Museum.

    Birch Bay, located near the Canadian border, has several large documented archeological shell midden sites. The bone wedge funerary object is consistent with burial practices in this area, as bone and antler wedges have been found in association with burials from other sites. The human remains have been determined to be Native American based on osteological and archeological evidence.

    Information provided during consultations shows Birch Bay to be an important area within the traditional aboriginal territory of the Lummi Tribe. Historical and anthropological sources state that Birch Bay was inhabited by the Semiahmoo, also referred to as the Birch Bay Indians (Amoss, 1978; Ruby et al, 1986; Spier, 1936; Suttles, 1951 & 1990; Swanton, 1952). The Semiahmoo people relocated to the Lummi Reservation and across the border into Canada (Ruby et al, 1986; Suttles, 1951). There is a clear cultural affiliation between these human remains and the Semiahmoo people. Today the Semiahmoo are represented by the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation. Other information provided during consultation indicates that Birch Bay is also of importance to the Nooksack people, who have a cultural connection to the bay and utilized it for resource procurement.

    Determinations Made by the Burke Museum and Central Washington University

    Officials of the Burke Museum and Central Washington University have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and this associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849 x2, email [email protected], or Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon, Department of Anthropology, Central Washington University, 400 East University Way, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544, telephone (509) 963-2671, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation may proceed.

    The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 23, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Editorial Note:

    This document was received at the Office of the Federal Regiater on January 25, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01722 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024429; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, (479) 575-3556, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR The human remains were removed from multiple locations in the State of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe). These human remains were inventoried and documented by Physical Anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    History and Description of the Remains

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3BA61 in Baxter County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3BA61 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the area of Osage Creek in Benton County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2000. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Benton County indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3BE5 in Benton County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in the 1980s. The remains were not identified as human until 2017. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3BE5 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2012, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Breckenridge Shelter site (3CR2) in Carroll County, AR. These remains were identified as human in 2017. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Breckenridge Shelter site indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MA2 in Madison County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MA2 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MA9 in Madison County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MA9 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the 3 Mile Cave site in Washington County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1976. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Washington County indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3WA582 in Washington County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Washington County indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from an unknown site in Northwest Arkansas, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northwest Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown area in Northwest Arkansas, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northwest Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown area in North Central Arkansas, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2017. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in North Central Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    This notice includes a variety of terms commonly used in discussions of Arkansas archeology and the historical trajectories that gave rise to specific Native American communities identified in the historical record. Based on the archeological context for these sites and what is presently known about the peoples who pre-date the historic Osage people and occupied the sites listed in this notice, the Arkansas Archeological Survey has determined the human remains listed in this notice are culturally affiliated with The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 13 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, (479) 575-3556, [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 11, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Editorial Note:

    This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on January 25, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01716 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024602; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TX AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Robert Maguire, Superintendent, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-3151, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TX. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Hutchinson and Potter Counties, TX.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Halapai Indian Tribe of the Hualaupai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah); Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

    The following Tribes were invited to consult but did not participate in the face-to-face consultation meeting: Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes”).

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Arrowhead Peak Ruin in Hutchinson County, TX. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site LAMR84 in Potter County, TX. No known individual was identified. The 48 associated funerary objects are 15 pot sherds, 15 pieces of debitage, 10 faunal bone fragments, 1 hammerstone, 2 bags of charcoal samples, 2 bags of soil samples, 1 lithic, 1 snail shell, and 1 shell pendant fragment.

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from site 41MO37 in Moore County, TX. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Alibates Ruin No. 28 in Potter County, TX. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    All of the sites are attributed to the Plains Panhandle Aspect/Antelope Creek phase (A.D. 1150-1450). Anthropological literature, archeological data, and tribal oral histories identify these peoples as being ancestral to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

    Determinations Made by Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument

    Officials of Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 48 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Robert Maguire, Superintendent, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-3151, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma, may proceed.

    Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: November 1, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01725 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024430; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, (479) 575-3556, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple locations in the State of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. The human remains were inventoried and documented by Physical Anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 2017, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered on the bank of the Arkansas River in Southeast Arkansas. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found along the Arkansas River indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1999, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered during a salvage excavation from site 3CY455 in Clay County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CY455 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2008, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CN4 in Conway County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CN4 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CG21 in Craighead County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CG21 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2008, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered during a salvage excavation from the Krebs site (3CG453) in Craighead County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Krebs site (3CG453) indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered from the Mound Place site (3CT1) in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Mound Place site (3CT1) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered from site 3CT6 in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT6 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were recovered from site 3CT6'E' in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT6'E' indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3CT7 in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT7 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1980 and 1983, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were recovered from the Beck site (3CT8) in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. The six associated funerary objects include one Mississippi Plain jar, one Bell Plain bowl, one Mississippi Plain bowl, two Bell Plain bottles, and one celt. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Beck site (3CT8) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CT9 in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT9 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CT10 in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT10 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, ten individuals were recovered from site 3CT13 in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects include two Bell Plain bottles and one Bell Plain lobed jar. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT13 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, ten individuals were recovered from the Belle Meade site (3CT30) in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individual was identified. The four associated funerary objects include two large Mississippi Plain bowls, one reconstructed Mississippi Plain jar, and one Bell Plain bowl (2016-551). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Belle Meade site (3CT30) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Edmondson site (3CT33) in Crittenden County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Edmonson site (3CT33) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CS'A' in Cross County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Cross County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Rose Mound site (3CS27) in Cross County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Rose Mound site (3CS27) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Parkin Phase (A.D. 1350-1550).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Parkin site (3CS29) in Cross County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Parkin site (3CS29) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Parkin Phase (A.D. 1350-1550).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CS64 in Cross County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CS64 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Harter Knoll site (3IN54) in Independence County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Harter Knoll site (3IN54) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2016, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3IZ319 in Izard County, AR. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent by the State Medical Examiner, and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Izard County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from an unknown location in Lawrence County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Lawrence County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3LW461 in Lawrence County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LW461 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3LE7 in Lee County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LE7 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Clay Hill site (3LE11) in Lee County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Clay Hill site (3LE11) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Starkley site (3LE17) in Lee County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Starkley site (3LE17) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3LE19 in Lee County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LE19 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS'C' in Mississippi County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Mississippi County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1998, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS5 in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS5 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS16 in Mississippi County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS16 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2016, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS45 in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS45 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Knappenberger site (3MS53) in Mississippi County, AR, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1998. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Knappenberger site (3MS53) indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS62 in Mississippi County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS62 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2016, human remains representing one individual were recovered from Perry County, AR. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent by the State Medical Examiner, and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Perry County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3SF3 in St. Francis County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3SF3 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3SF4 in St. Francis County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3SF4 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3SF9 in St. Francis County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3SF9 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3SF25 in St. Francis County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3SF25 indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Sycamore Landing area in St. Francis County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in St. Francis County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Sycamore Bend Plantation area in St. Francis County, AR, and were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013 and 2016. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in St. Francis County indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from an unknown area in Northeast Arkansas by the Memphis Archaeological and Geological Society. These human remains were transferred from the University of Memphis to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northeast Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from an unknown area in the State of Arkansas, and were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2017. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried sometime during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    Quapaw communities occupied villages located around the confluence of the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers at the time of late 17th century French exploration. The earliest collections listed on the NIC appear to be from Archaic contexts. Already during the Mississippi period (A.D. 950-1541), though, distinctive local groups emerge in the archeological record that correspond in geographical extent and cultural cohesiveness to present-day groups that include the Quapaw.

    This notice includes a variety of terms commonly used in discussions of Arkansas archeology and the historical trajectories that gave rise to specific Native American communities identified in the historical record. Based on the archeological context for these sites and what is presently known about the peoples who pre-date the historic Quapaw people and occupied the sites listed in this notice, the Arkansas Archeological Survey has determined the human remains listed in this notice are culturally affiliated with The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 104 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 13 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, (479) 575-3556, [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Quapaw Tribe of Indians may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying The Quapaw Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 11, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Editorial Note:

    This document was received at the Office of The Federal Register on January 25, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01717 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024341; PPWOCRADNO-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on December 22, 2014. This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects listed in that notice. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple counties in the State of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal Agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (79 FR 76351-76361, December 22, 2014). An additional funerary object was recently identified among the collections. To date, transfer of control of the associated funerary objects has not occurred.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (79 FR 76354, December 22, 2014), column 2, paragraph 1, sentence 3, under the heading “History and Description of the Remains,” is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

    The one associated funerary object is a partially reconstructed Mississippi Plain jar.

    In the Federal Register (79 FR 76355, December 22, 2014), column 1, paragraph 5, under the heading “History and Description of the Remains,” is corrected by adding the following sentence:

    No associated funerary objects are present.

    In the Federal Register (79 FR 76361, December 22, 2014), column 3, paragraph 3, under the heading “Determinations made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey,” is corrected by substituting the number “274” with the number “275”.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556, by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the associated funerary objects to the Quapaw Tribe of Indians may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying the Quapaw Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Editorial Note:

    This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on January 25, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-01719 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024586; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TX AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Robert Maguire, Superintendent, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-3151, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Fritch, TX. The human remains were removed from Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Potter County, TX.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah); Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

    The following Tribes were invited to consult but did not participate during a region-wide, multi-park process: Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes”).

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 41HC167 in Hutchinson County, TX, by Wes Phillips of the National Park Service and Meeks Etchieson. Previous collections from 41HC167 have shown it to be an archaic site. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Determinations Made by Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument

    Officials of Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological analysis.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

    • According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona.

    • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; and Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Robert Maguire, Superintendent, Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-3151, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona, may proceed.

    Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 31, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01723 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0024479; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology at the address in this notice by March 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. Ryan J. Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749-4490, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Hornblower II and Abel's Hill sites in Dukes County, MA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), as well as the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation (a non-federally recognized Indian group).

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Hornblower II site in Aquinnah, Dukes County, MA, by James J. Richardson III and James B. Petersen. The human remains are fragmentary, likely as a result of being impacted by earth-moving equipment. The human remains were transferred to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology on November 12, 2012. The individual is an adult male, aged 30-45 years old. No known individual was identified. The 189 associated funerary objects are 1 unidentified bird bone; 3 unidentified mammal bone; 1 quartz core frag; 1 rhyolite biface fragment; 114 quartz flakes; 1 quartz flake; 3 pottery sherds; 1 bag of burial pit floatation sample, including soil, pebbles, shell, and animal bone fragments; 1 large quartz nodule; 3 bone or tree bark fragments; 1 large chunk white quartz; 8 marine shells and soil from feature fill; 1 large quartz flake; 1 possible lithic tool; and 49 quartz flakes.

    Information about the Hornblower II site is found in William A. Ritchie's 1969 book “The Archaeology of Martha's Vineyard: A Framework for the Prehistory of Southern New England,” and in field notes by James J. Richardson III and James B. Petersen, on file at the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, and in the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (site #19-DK-44). The Hornblower II site is a shell mound located on the north shore of Squibnocket Pond on Martha's Vineyard, with midden deposits ranging from two to nearly four feet in thickness over approximately 3,400 square feet. Ritchie's excavations in the 1960s documented four major strata. Radiocarbon dates and artifacts found during the 1960s and 1980s excavations indicate occupation from the Archaic through the Late Woodland periods, approximately 5,500 to 500 years ago. No burials were identified during Ritchie's excavations. James J. Richardson reports that the human burial was discovered outside of the midden area during the 1982 excavations. The burial was found during shovel testing to delimit the site boundaries. Human remains were observed in Test Pit #11, and a five-foot-square excavation unit designated N70E25 was made to recover the human remains. The field notes state that “it now appears to have been a primary flexed burial heading southwest, facing southeast toward Squibnocket Pond.” The notes also state that the burial was in a shallow pit that was difficult to discern due to disturbance by plowing. According to the excavators, the pit had originally been used for cooking. Physical anthropologist Harley A. Erickson made an inventory of the human remains in October of 2014, noting that the appearance and morphology of the human remains are consistent with Native American ancestry. In the 1980s, the original excavators submitted samples of marine shell found in association with the burial for radiocarbon dating, but the results were inconclusive. Artifacts found in the burial pit indicate a Late Woodland period date.

    Sometime in the 1980s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unrecorded site at Abel's Hill in Chilmark, Dukes County, MA, by James B. Richardson III and Richard Burt on behalf of the Chilmark Police Department. The human remains are nearly complete, and are in a good state of preservation. They were transferred to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology on November 12, 2012. The individual is an adult male, aged 24-30 years old. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Very little documentation is available on the Abel's Hill site. James B. Richardson III relates that the burial was discovered during the excavation of a septic system at a private residence in the 1980s. The location was not a known archeological site. The Chilmark Police Department contacted avocational archeologist Richard Burt, who, with assistance from James B. Richardson III, excavated the burial. The human remains were retained by Richardson and curated with material from the Hornblower II site, prior to transfer to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology in 2012. Physical anthropologist Harley A. Erickson made an inventory of the remains in October of 2014, noting strong morphological traits on the cranial and postcranial remains consistent with Native American ancestry.

    The Hornblower II and Abel's Hill sites lie within the homeland of the Wampanoag (see Frank Speck, “Territorial Subdivisions and Boundaries of the Wampanoag, Massachusett, and Nauset Indians, Indian Notes and Monographs No. 44” (1928), Bert Salwen, “Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period” in “Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast,” (Bruce G. Trigg, ed., 1978), and Robert S. Grumet, “Historic Contact: Indian Peoples and Colonists in Today's Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries,” 117-121, 129-133 (1995)). Linguistically, this area is within the so-called n-dialect shared by Massachusett, Wampanoag, and Pokanoket speakers (see Kathleen J. Bragdon, “Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1650-1775,” 22-23 (2009)). The coastal groups already in this area by the Late Woodland period (circa A.D. 1000) or even the Late Archaic, are likely the ancestors of the Wampanoag people encountered by the English in the seventeenth century. Geography, archeology, linguistics, oral tradition, and history provide multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate longstanding ties between the Wampanoag and the area around Aquinnah and Chilmark and affirm affiliation with the burials at the Hornblower II and Abel's Hill sites.

    Determinations Made by the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology

    Officials of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 189 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.) and Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ryan J. Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749-4490, email [email protected], by March 1, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and, if joined to one or more of the culturally affiliated tribes, the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group, may proceed.

    The Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology is responsible for notifying the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), as well as the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation (a non-federally recognized Indian group) that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 16, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Editorial Note:

    This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on