Federal Register Vol. 83, No.23,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 23 (February 2, 2018)

Page Range4831-5028
FR Document

83_FR_23
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 4831 - Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of TerroristsPDF
83 FR 4930 - Sunshine Act Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services BoardPDF
83 FR 4849 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery; 2018 Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab SpecificationsPDF
83 FR 4913 - Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization; Texas Eastern Transmission, LPPDF
83 FR 4912 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Campus Safety and Security SurveyPDF
83 FR 4920 - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee; Call for NominationsPDF
83 FR 4905 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review in the Matter of Softwood Lumber From Canada: Determinations (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-03)PDF
83 FR 4917 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 4953 - Notice of Modification to Previously Published Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental AssessmentPDF
83 FR 4914 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 4941 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the ProShares Bitcoin ETF and the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02PDF
83 FR 4949 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance RulesPDF
83 FR 4934 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance RulesPDF
83 FR 4947 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance RulesPDF
83 FR 4936 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance RulesPDF
83 FR 4942 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance RulesPDF
83 FR 4944 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise The Options Clearing Corporation's Schedule of FeesPDF
83 FR 4916 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 4916 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 4850 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2017-18 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason AdjustmentsPDF
83 FR 4890 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Regulatory Amendment 4PDF
83 FR 4938 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4943 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4936 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4946 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4882 - Anchorage Grounds; Saint Lawrence Seaway, Cape Vincent, New YorkPDF
83 FR 4919 - Announcement of Public Meeting via Teleconference; North American Wetlands Conservation CouncilPDF
83 FR 4964 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting RegulationsPDF
83 FR 4932 - North Anna Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
83 FR 4930 - NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; MeetingPDF
83 FR 4911 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 4910 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
83 FR 4918 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 4896 - Foreign-Trade Zone 81-Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Application for Reorganization Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
83 FR 4901 - Certain Tapered Roller Bearings From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
83 FR 4899 - Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 4910 - Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4931 - Large Scale Networking (LSN)-Joint Engineering Team (JET)PDF
83 FR 4931 - Large Scale Networking (LSN)-Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination (MAGIC) TeamPDF
83 FR 4921 - Notice of Intent To Amend the California Desert Conservation Area, Bakersfield, and Bishop Resource Management Plans and Prepare Associated Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental AssessmentsPDF
83 FR 4843 - 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation AreasPDF
83 FR 4838 - 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation AreasPDF
83 FR 4840 - 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation AreasPDF
83 FR 4913 - Methane Hydrate Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4894 - Notice of Request for Renewal of an Approved Information Collection (Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products)PDF
83 FR 4915 - Consumer Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 4911 - Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement for Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks Washington, DCPDF
83 FR 4884 - Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works: Notice of Public HearingsPDF
83 FR 4954 - Notice of Establishment of Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year 2018PDF
83 FR 4845 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, Washington, DCPDF
83 FR 4924 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
83 FR 4916 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10073, The Elizabeth State Bank, Elizabeth, IllinoisPDF
83 FR 4900 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application for Export Trade Certificate of ReviewPDF
83 FR 4961 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Assumption Approval and/or Release From Personal Liability to the Government on a Home LoanPDF
83 FR 4961 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Matured Endowment NotificationPDF
83 FR 4960 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Individualized Tutorial AssistancePDF
83 FR 4922 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 4931 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes; Call for NominationsPDF
83 FR 4927 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
83 FR 4950 - Global Magntisky Human Rights Accountability Act Annual ReportPDF
83 FR 4914 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments RequestPDF
83 FR 4934 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 4897 - Order Temporarily Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
83 FR 4834 - International Services Surveys: BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property With Foreign PersonsPDF
83 FR 4896 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 4895 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 4886 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
83 FR 4957 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Approved Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection ActPDF
83 FR 4955 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Bank Activities and Operations; Investment in Bank PremisesPDF
83 FR 4956 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; International RegulationPDF
83 FR 4959 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Customer Complaint FormPDF
83 FR 4847 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation PlanPDF
83 FR 4926 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program Reporting RequirementsPDF
83 FR 4845 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
83 FR 4909 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Recreational Information Program Social Network SurveyPDF
83 FR 4903 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
83 FR 4906 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
83 FR 4925 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, CERCLA and EPCRAPDF
83 FR 4908 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fisheries Finance Program RequirementsPDF
83 FR 4863 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Amendment of Class D Airspace, and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Tacoma, WAPDF
83 FR 4833 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; for the Following Ohio Towns; Millersburg, OH and Coshocton, OHPDF
83 FR 4865 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Casper, WYPDF
83 FR 4866 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Atwater, CAPDF
83 FR 4868 - Centralized Partnership Audit Regime: Adjusting Tax AttributesPDF
83 FR 4998 - Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television StandardPDF

Issue

83 23 Friday, February 2, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Rural Housing Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4917-4918 2018-02134 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas, 4838-4844 2018-02094 2018-02095 2018-02096 Drawbridge Operations: Anacostia River, Washington, DC, 4845 2018-02082 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Saint Lawrence Seaway, Cape Vincent, NY, 4882-4884 2018-02114 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 4910-4911 2018-02108 2018-02109 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bank Activities and Operations; Investment in Bank Premises, 4955-4956 2018-02057 Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of 50 Billion Dollars or More under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 4957-4959 2018-02060 Customer Complaint Form, 4959-4960 2018-02054 International Regulation, 4956-4957 2018-02056 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress PROPOSED RULES Public Hearings: Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works, 4884-4886 2018-02086 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau RULES International Services Surveys: BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons, 4834-4838 2018-02065 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Campus Safety and Security Survey, 4912 2018-02141 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program Reporting Requirements, 4926-4927 2018-02048 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, 4913 2018-02093
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report, 4847-4848 2018-02053 Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport, 4845-4847 2018-02047 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS; GA, 4886-4890 2018-02061 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 4914 2018-02131 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4914-4915 2018-02069 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Millersburg and Coshocton, OH, 4833-4834 2018-02017 PROPOSED RULES Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Atwater, CA, 4866-4868 2018-02012 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Casper, WY, 4865-4866 2018-02013 Establishment of Class E Airspace, Amendment of Class D Airspace, and Revocation of Class E Airspace: Tacoma, WA, 4863-4864 2018-02021 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport, Dallas, GA, 4953-4954 2018-02132 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Authorizing Permissive Use of Next Generation Broadcast Television Standard, 4998-5028 2018-01473 NOTICES Meetings: Consumer Advisory Committee, 4915-4916 2018-02091 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: 10073, Elizabeth State Bank, Elizabeth, IL, 4916 2018-02079 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 4913-4914 2018-02142 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 4916-4917 2018-02122 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 4916 2018-02123 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Establishment of Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year 2018, 4954-4955 2018-02083 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Proposed Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations, 4964-4996 2018-02112 NOTICES Meetings: North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Teleconference, 4919-4920 2018-02113 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products, 4894-4895 2018-02092 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 81; Portsmouth, NH, 4896-4897 2018-02105 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export Privileges; Denials: Gulnihal Yegane, et al., 4897-4899 2018-02067 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 4930-4931 2018-02212 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee, 4920-4921 2018-02138
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Centralized Partnership Audit Regime: Adjusting Tax Attributes, 4868-4882 2018-01989 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Export Trade Certificate of Review, 4900 2018-02078 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from Republic of Korea, 4901-4903 2018-02104 Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan, 4899-4900 2018-02103 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Republic of Korea, 4906-4908 2018-02042 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan, 4903-4905 2018-02043 Requests for North American Free Trade Agreement Panel Review: Softwood Lumber from Canada, 4905-4906 2018-02135 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Citric acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, 4922-4924 2018-02073 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4924-4925 2018-02080 2018-02081 Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act, CERCLA, EPCRA, 4925-4926 2018-02041 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Intent to Amend California Desert Conservation Area, Bakersfield, and Bishop Resource Management Plans and Prepare Associated Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments, 4921-4922 2018-02098 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 4927-4930 2018-02071 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 4930 2018-02110 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery; 2018 Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Specifications, 4849-4850 2018-02148 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2017-18 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments, 4850-4862 2018-02121 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Spiny Lobster Fishery of Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Regulatory Amendment 4, 4890-4893 2018-02119 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fisheries Finance Program Requirements, 4908-4909 2018-02040 Marine Recreational Information Program Social Network Survey, 4909-4910 2018-02044 Meetings: Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, 4910 2018-02102 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Large Scale Networking—Joint Engineering Team, 4931 2018-02101 Large Scale Networking—Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination Team, 4931 2018-02100 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks, Washington, DC, 4911-4912 2018-02090 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: North Anna Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 4932-4934 2018-02111 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 4934 2018-02068 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes, 4931-4932 2018-02072 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: Terrorists; Lawful Detention (EO 13823), 4831-4832 2018-02261 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4895-4896 2018-02063 2018-02064 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4936, 4938-4941, 4943-4944, 4946-4947 2018-02115 2018-02116 2018-02117 2018-02118 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Nasdaq BX, Inc., 4942-4943 2018-02125 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 4936-4938 2018-02126 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 4947-4948 2018-02127 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 4934-4936 2018-02128 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 4949-4950 2018-02129 NYSE Arca, Inc., 4941-4942 2018-02130 Options Clearing Corp., 4944-4946 2018-02124 State Department State Department NOTICES Global Magntisky Human Rights Accountability Act Annual Report, 4950-4953 2018-02070 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 4918-4919 2018-02107 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Assumption Approval and/or Release from Personal Liability to Government on Home Loan, 4961-4962 2018-02077 Application for Individualized Tutorial Assistance, 4960-4961 2018-02075 Matured Endowment Notification, 4961 2018-02076 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4964-4996 2018-02112 Part III Federal Communications Commission, 4998-5028 2018-01473 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 23 Friday, February 2, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0342; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-6] Amendment of Class E Airspace; for the Following Ohio Towns; Millersburg, OH and Coshocton, OH AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH; and at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH due to the decommissioning of Tiverton VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), cancellation of the VOR approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates at Richard Downing Airport and Holmes County Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (82 FR 55063; November 20, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0342 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH. and Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, an edit was made removing the city in the airspace designation for Holmes County Airport to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH. The segments within 2.7 miles either side of the 085° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.5 miles east of the airport and within 1.8 miles either side of the 236° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8 miles southwest of the airport, would be removed. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Holmes County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Additionally, the city is removed from the airport name in the airspace description to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, dated October 12, 2017.

This action also modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH, with a segment within 2.0 miles (reduced from 4- miles) either side of the 037° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles (reduced from 10- miles) northeast of the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Richard Downing Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

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

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL OH E5 Millersburg, OH [Amended] Holmes County Airport, OH (Lat. 40°32′12″ N, long. 81°57′21″ W)

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

AGL OH E5 Coshocton, OH [Amended] Richard Downing Airport, OH (Lat. 40°18′37″ N, long. 81°51′09″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Richard Downing Airport and within 2.0 miles either side of the 037° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles northeast of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 26, 2018. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-02017 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 CFR Part 801 [170322303-8069-01] RIN 0691-AA87 International Services Surveys: BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property With Foreign Persons AGENCY:

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends regulations of the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to set forth the reporting requirements for the mandatory BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons. This survey applies to the 2017 fiscal reporting year. The benchmark survey covers the universe of transactions in selected services and intellectual property and is BEA's most comprehensive survey of such transactions. For the 2017 benchmark survey, BEA is making changes to the reporting requirements of the survey, the data items collected, and the design of the survey form to satisfy changing data needs and to improve data quality and the effectiveness and efficiency of data collections.

DATES:

This final rule is effective March 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Stein, Chief, Services Surveys Branch (BE-50), Balance of Payments Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Washington, DC 20233; phone (301) 278-9189; or via email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On November 15, 2017, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that set forth the revised reporting criteria for the BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons (82 FR 52863). No comments on the proposed rule were received.

This final rule amends 15 CFR part 801 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons.

BEA typically conducts the BE-120 survey once every five years under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Surveys Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).

In 2012, BEA established regulatory guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment (77 FR 24373; April 24, 2012). This final rule, unlike most annual or quarterly BEA surveys conducted pursuant to the Act, amends those regulations to require a response from persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-120, whether or not they are contacted by BEA.

The benchmark survey covers the universe of selected services and intellectual property transactions with foreign persons and is BEA's most detailed survey of such transactions. In nonbenchmark years, the universe estimates covering these transactions are derived from the sample data reported on BEA's BE-125 Quarterly Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons. The purpose of the benchmark survey is to obtain universe data, including data from respondents not subject to filing on an ongoing quarterly basis, that will be used, in conjunction with quarterly data collected on the companion BE-125 survey, to produce estimates of selected services components for BEA's international transactions accounts (ITAs), national income and product accounts, and industry accounts. These data are also used to monitor U.S. trade in services, to analyze the impact on the U.S. economy and on foreign economies, to compile and improve the U.S. economic accounts, to support U.S. commercial policy on trade in services, to conduct trade promotion, and to improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities.

Description of Changes

This final rule amends the regulations (15 CFR part 801) and the survey form for the BE-120 benchmark survey. These amendments include changes to the reporting requirements for those not subject to reporting on the mandatory schedule(s) of the survey, changes in data items collected, and changes to the design of the survey form.

BEA changes the reporting requirements for reporters with transactions in covered services below the threshold for mandatory reporting on the schedule(s) of the survey ($2 million in combined sales or $1 million in combined purchases for fiscal year 2017). All reporters, regardless of the amount of their transactions in covered services are required to provide a total dollar amount for their sales and purchases, as applicable, by transaction type.

BEA adds and modifies some items on the benchmark survey form. The following items are added to the benchmark survey:

(1) Mandatory questions are added to collect information on contract manufacturing services. Reporters are required to provide a description of the primary manufactured (finished) good and the materials received or provided for further processing. Reporters are required to identify, on mandatory Schedule(s) A and B, as applicable, the foreign country(ies) involved in the transaction(s) and to distribute the amounts reported for each country according to whether the foreign person is the U.S. person's foreign affiliate, part of the U.S. person's foreign parent group, or an unaffiliated foreign person. As a result of respondent feedback obtained through various agency outreach efforts, BEA has decided not to collect the additional proposed aggregate and country-level detail on sales and purchases to foreign persons for: (1) The cost of materials received or provided for use in the manufacturing process, (2) the primary country of origin of the inputs used, (3) the final value of the product returned after the manufacturing service was completed, and (4) the primary country of destination of the finished product.

(2) Mandatory questions are added to collect new information on services transactions that were conducted remotely, e.g. where both the supplier and the consumer are in their respective territories when the service is delivered. This information will be collected for both sales of services performed remotely for foreign persons by U.S. persons and for purchases of services performed remotely by foreign persons for U.S. persons. For transactions in selected services, respondents are required to check a box identifying the percentage of their transactions that were conducted remotely, and to identify if this information was sourced from their accounting records or from recall/general knowledge. As a result of respondent feedback obtained through various agency outreach efforts, BEA has deciced not to collect this new information for other modes of delivery of services.

In addition, this final rule makes the following modifications to the survey form:

(1) Mandatory Schedules A and B are expanded to collect additional detail on intellectual property (IP) transactions. A U.S. person who engages in IP transactions with foreign persons is required to distribute their sales (receipts) and/or purchases (payments) according to the type of transaction and the type of IP. The covered transaction types are: (1) Transactions for the rights to use IP, (2) transactions for the rights to reproduce and/or distribute IP, and (3) transactions for the outright sales or purchases of IP. Reporters are required to identify the foreign country(ies) involved in the transaction(s) and to distribute the amounts reported for each country according to whether the foreign person is the U.S. person's foreign affiliate, part of the U.S. person's foreign parent group, or an unaffiliated foreign person.

(2) Research and development services are broken out into two categories: (1) Provision of customized and non-customized R&D services, and (2) other R&D services, including testing.

(3) Engineering, architectural, and surveying services are broken out into three categories: (1) Architectural services; (2) engineering services; (3) surveying, cartography, certification, testing, and technical inspection services. The current category of industrial engineering services has been dropped and captured within engineering services.

(4) Management, consulting, and public relation services are broken out into three categories: (1) Market research services; (2) public opinion polling services; and (3) other management, consulting, and public relations services. Trade exhibition and sales convention services are collected separately.

(5) Database and other information services are broken out into two components: (1) News agency services, and (2) other information services.

(6) Computer services are expanded into three categories: (1) Computer software, including end-user licenses and customization services; (2) cloud computing and data storage services; and (3) other computer services.

(7) Several service categories previously collected under “Other selected services” are collected separately. These services include audiovisual services, artistic-related services, health services, heritage and recreational services, other personal services, disbursements for sales promotion and representation, photographic services (including satellite photography), and space transport services.

(8) Mandatory Schedule C only collects related goods details for construction services. Mining services as well as the three new categories that replace engineering, architectural, and surveying services (see (3) above) are collected on Schedule A.

(9) The identification of transaction types and voluntary reporting of additional country and affiliation detail has been streamlined. All reporters, regardless of the amount of their transactions in covered services are required to provide a total dollar amount for their sales and purchases, as applicable, by transaction type. Reporters with transactions below the threshold have the option to voluntarily report information on transactions by country and by affiliation on the standard reporting schedules.

In addition, BEA has redesigned the format and wording of the survey. The new design incorporates improvements made to other BEA surveys as well as enhancements from a recent cognitive review conducted with selected survey respondents. Survey instructions and data item descriptions have been changed to improve clarity and ensure the benchmark survey form is more consistent with other BEA surveys.

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13771

This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Additionally, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because this rule results in no more than de minimis costs.

Executive Order 13132

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection-of-information in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (PRA). OMB approved the reinstatement of the information collection under OMB control number 0608-0058.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The BE-120 survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 15,500 respondents. Approximately 11,500 respondents will report mandatory data on the survey, and approximately 4,000 will file exemption claims. The respondent burden for this collection-of-information will vary from one respondent to another but is estimated to average (1) 23 hours for the 5,000 respondents that file mandatory or voluntary data by country and affiliation for relevant transaction types on the mandatory schedules; (2) 4 hours for the 6,500 respondents that file mandatory data by transaction type but not by country or affiliation—including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (3) 1 hour for other responses. Thus, the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 145,000 hours, or about 9.5 hours (145,000 hours/15,500 respondents) per response, compared to 105,000 hours, or about 7 hours (105,000/15,000) for the previous BE-120 benchmark survey in 2011. The increase in burden hours is due to an increase in the size of the respondent universe as well as changes to the reporting requirements and content of the survey.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at [email protected] and to OMB, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0058, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, Kerrie Leslie, via email at [email protected]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared, as no comments were received regarding the determination that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 801

Economic statistics, Foreign trade, International transactions, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated January 17, 2018. Brian C. Moyer, Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:

PART 801—SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SERVICES BETWEEN U.S. AND FOREIGN PERSONS AND SURVEYS OF DIRECT INVESTMENT 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 801 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981 Comp. p. 173); and E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985 Comp. p. 348).

2. Revise § 801.3 to read as follows:
§ 801.3 Reporting requirements.

Except for surveys subject to rulemaking in §§ 801.7, 801.8, 801.9, 801.10, and 801.11, reporting requirements for all other surveys conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis shall be as follows:

(a) Notice of specific reporting requirements, including who is required to report, the information to be reported, the manner of reporting, and the time and place of filing reports, will be published by the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Federal Register prior to the implementation of a survey;

(b) In accordance with section 3104(b)(2) of title 22 of the United States Code, persons notified of these surveys and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall furnish, under oath, any report containing information which is determined to be necessary to carry out the surveys and studies provided for by the Act; and

(c) Persons not notified in writing of their filing obligation by the Bureau of Economic Analysis are not required to complete the survey.

3. Add § 801.11 to read as follows:
§ 801.11 Rules and regulations for the BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons—2017.

The BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons will be conducted covering fiscal year 2017. All legal authorities, provisions, definitions, and requirements contained in §§ 801.1 and 801.2 and §§ 801.4 through 801.6 are applicable to this survey. Specific additional rules and regulations for the BE-120 survey are given in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. More detailed instructions are given on the report form and in instructions accompanying the report form.

(a) Response required. A response is required from persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-120 Benchmark Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons—2017, contained in this section, whether or not they are contacted by BEA. Also, a person, or its agent, that is contacted by BEA about reporting on this survey, either by sending them a report form or by written inquiry, must respond in writing pursuant to this section. This may be accomplished by:

(1) Completing and returning the BE-120 by the due date of the survey; or

(2) If exempt, by completing the determination of reporting status section of the BE-120 survey and returning it to BEA by the due date of the survey.

(b) Who must report. A BE-120 report is required of each U.S. person that had sales to foreign persons or purchases from foreign persons in the services and intellectual property categories covered by the survey during its 2017 fiscal year.

(c) What must be reported. (1) A U.S. person that had combined sales to foreign persons that exceeded $2 million or combined purchases from foreign persons that exceeded $1 million in the services and intellectual property categories covered by the survey during its 2017 fiscal year, on an accrual basis, is required to provide data on total sales and/or purchases of each of the covered types of services and intellectual property transactions and must disaggregate the totals by country and by relationship to the foreign transactor (foreign affiliate, foreign parent group, or unaffiliated). The $2 million threshold for sales and the $1 million threshold for purchases should be applied to services and intellectual property transactions with foreign persons by all parts of the consolidated domestic U.S. Reporter. Because the $2 million threshold for sales and $1 million threshold for purchases apply separately to sales and purchases, the mandatory reporting requirement may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both. The determination of whether a U.S. company is subject to this reporting requirement may be based on the judgment of knowledgeable persons in a company who can identify reportable transactions on a recall basis, with a reasonable degree of certainty, without conducting a detailed manual records search.

(2) A U.S. person that had combined sales to foreign persons that were $2 million or less or combined purchases from foreign persons that were $1 million or less in the intellectual property or services categories covered by the survey during its 2017 fiscal year, on an accrual basis, is required to provide the total sales and/or purchases for each type of transaction in which they engaged. The $2 million threshold for sales and the $1 million threshold for purchases should be applied to services and intellectual property transactions with foreign persons by all parts of the consolidated domestic U.S. Reporter. Because the $2 million threshold for sales and $1 million threshold for purchases apply separately to sales and purchases, the mandatory reporting requirement may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both.

(i) Voluntary reporting: If, during fiscal year 2017, combined sales were $2 million or less, on an accrual basis, the U.S. person may, in addition to providing the required total for each type of transaction, report sales at a country and affiliation level of detail on the applicable mandatory schedule(s). Provision of this additional detail is voluntary. The estimates may be judgmental, that is, based on recall, without conducting a detailed records search.

(ii) If, during fiscal year 2017, combined purchases were $1 million or less, on an accrual basis, the U.S. person may, in addition to providing the required total for each type of transaction, report purchases at a country and affiliation level of detail on the applicable mandatory schedule(s). Provision of this additional detail is voluntary. The estimates may be judgmental, that is, based on recall, without conducting a detailed records search.

(3) Exemption claims: Any U.S. person that receives the BE-120 survey form from BEA, but is not subject to the reporting requirements, must file an exemption claim by completing the determination of reporting status section of the BE-120 survey and returning it to BEA by the due date of the survey. This requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with reporting requirements and efficient administration of the Act by eliminating unnecessary follow-up contact.

(d) Covered types of services. Services transactions covered by this survey consist of sales and purchases related to certain intellectual property rights (see paragraphs (d)(1) through (18) of this section for a list of intellectual property-related transactions covered by this survey) and sales and purchases of selected services (see paragraphs (d)(19) through (59) of this section for a list of services covered by this survey). The transactions (sales or purchases) between U.S. companies and foreign persons covered by the BE-120 survey are:

(1) Rights related to the use of a patent, process, or trade secret to produce and/or distribute a product or service;

(2) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to patents, processes, and trade secrets;

(3) Rights to use books, music, etc., including end-user rights related to digital content;

(4) Rights to reproduce and/or distribute books, music, etc.;

(5) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to books, music, etc.;

(6) Rights to use trademarks;

(7) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to trademarks;

(8) Rights to use recorded performances and events, including end-user rights related to digital content;

(9) Rights to reproduce and/or distribute recorded performances and events;

(10) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to recorded performances and events;

(11) Rights to broadcast and record live performances and events;

(12) Rights to reproduce and/or distribute general use computer software;

(13) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to general use computer software;

(14) Fees associated with business format franchising;

(15) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to business format franchising;

(16) Rights to use other intellectual property;

(17) Rights to reproduce and/or distribute other intellectual property;

(18) Outright sales of proprietary rights related to other intellectual property;

(19) Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services;

(20) Advertising services;

(21) Auxiliary insurance services;

(22) Computer software, including end-user licenses and customization services;

(23) Cloud computing and data storage services;

(24) Other computer services;

(25) Construction services;

(26) News agency services (excludes production costs related to news broadcasters);

(27) Other information services;

(28) Education services;

(29) Architectural services;

(30) Engineering services;

(31) Surveying, cartography, certification, testing and technical inspection services;

(32) Financial services;

(33) Maintenance services;

(34) Installation, alteration, and training services;

(35) Legal services;

(36) Market research services;

(37) Public opinion polling services;

(38) Other management, consulting, and public relations services;

(39) Merchanting services (net receipts);

(40) Mining services;

(41) Operational leasing;

(42) Trade-related services, other than merchanting services;

(43) Artistic-related services;

(44) Premiums paid on primary insurance;

(45) Losses recovered on primary insurance;

(46) Provision of customized and non-customized research and development services;

(47) Other research and development services;

(48) Telecommunications services;

(49) Health services;

(50) Heritage and recreational services;

(51) Audiovisual and production services;

(52) Contract manufacturing services;

(53) Disbursements for sales promotion and representation;

(54) Photographic services (including satellite photography services);

(55) Space transport services;

(56) Trade exhibition and sales convention services;

(57) Agricultural services;

(58) Waste treatment and depollution services; and

(59) Other selected services n.i.e. (not included elsewhere).

(e) Types of transactions excluded from the scope of this survey. (1) Sales and purchases of goods. Trade in goods involves products that have a physical form, and includes payments or receipts for electricity.

(2) Sales and purchases of financial instruments, including stocks, bonds, financial derivatives, loans, mutual fund shares, and negotiable CDs. (However, securities brokerage is a service).

(3) Income on financial instruments (interest, dividends, capital gain distributions, etc).

(4) Compensation paid to, or received by, employees.

(5) Penalties and fines and gifts or grants in the form of goods and cash (sometimes called “transfers”).

(f) Due date. A fully completed and certified BE-120 report, or qualifying exemption claim with the determination of reporting status section completed, is due to be filed with BEA not later than June 29, 2018 (or by July 30, 2018 for respondents that use BEA's eFile system).

[FR Doc. 2018-02065 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 [USCG-2018-0048] 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

SUMMARY:

This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

DATES:

This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between April 2017 to June 2017, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions on this document contact Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between April 2017 to June 2017 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

Docket No. Type Location Effective
  • date
  • USCG-2016-0085 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 3/25/2017 USCG-2016-0086 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 3/26/2017 USCG-2017-0128 Special Local Regulations Tuscaloosa, AL 4/1/2017 USCG-2016-0087 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 4/1/2017 USCG-2017-0271 Safety Zones Apra Outer Harbor, GU 4/7/2017 USCG-2017-0288 Safety Zones Catskill, NY 4/7/2017 USCG-2017-0235 Safety Zones Savannah, GA 4/8/2017 USCG-2017-0205 Safety Zones Onslow County, NC 4/10/2017 USCG-2017-0013 Safety Zones Pittsburgh, PA 4/17/2017 USCG-2017-0017 Safety Zones Daytona Beach, FL 4/21/2017 USGC-2017-0247 Safety Zones Panama City, FL 4/21/2017 USCG-2017-0214 Safety Zones Piti, GU 4/21/2017 USCG-2017-0168 Special Local Regulations Corsica River, MD 4/22/2017 USGC-2017-0031 Safety Zones Myrtle Beach, SC 4/23/2017 USCG-2017-0337 Security Zones Oahu, HI 4/23/2017 USCG-2017-0296 Safety Zones Tennessee River 4/24/2017 USCG-2017-0361 Safety Zones U.S. Virgin Island 4/29/2017 USCG-2017-0381 Safety Zones St. Louis, MO 5/2/2017 USCG-2017-0295 Safety Zones Upper Mississippi River 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0380 Security Zones Manhattan, NY 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0380 Security Zones Manhattan, NY 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0138 Safety Zones Fort Lauderdale, FL 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0249 Safety Zones Mobile, Al 5/5/2017 USCG-2017-0090 Security Zones Pittsburgh, PA 5/5/2017 USCG-2017-0280 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 5/14/2017 USGC-2017-0431 Safety Zones St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 5/15/2017 USCG-2017-0432 Safety Zones St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 5/16/2017 USCG-2017-0413 Security Zones New London, CT 5/17/2017 USCG-2017-0123 Safety Zones Charleston, SC 5/18/2017 USCG-2017-0352 Safety Zones Apra Outer Harbor, GU 5/18/2017 USCG-2017-0206 Special Local Regulations Urbanna, VA 5/20/2017 USCG-2017-0477 Safety Zones Vicksburg, MS 5/23/2017 USCG-2017-0479 Safety Zones Vidalia, LA 5/24/2017 USGC-2017-0489 Safety Zones St. Louis, MO 5/26/2017 USCG-2016-0345 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 5/27/2017 USCG-2017-0343 Special Local Regulations Nashville, TN 5/27/2017 USCG-2017-0459 Security Zones Montgomery County, Maryland 5/28/2017 USCG-2017-0382 Safety Zones Merizo, GU 5/28/2017 USCG-2017-0404 Safety Zones Port Lake Michigan 5/28/2017 USCG-2017-0376 Safety Zones San Diego COTP 5/28/2017 USCG-2012-0309 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 6/1/2017 USCG-2017-0193 Safety Zones Beaumont, TX 6/1/2017 USCG-2017-0192 Safety Zones Hackberry, LA 6/2/2017 USCG-2017-0391 Safety Zones Bellaire, OH 6/3/2017 USCG-2017-0358 Safety Zones Lakeside, MO 6/3/2017 USCG-2017-0457 Safety Zones East River, NY 6/4/2017 USCG-2017-0518 Security Zones Cincimnnati, OH 6/7/2017 USCG-2017-0265 Special Local Regulations Parker, AZ 6/10/2017 USCG-2017-0265 Special Local Regulations Parker, AZ 6/10/2017 USCG-2017-0199 Safety Zones Vermilion, OH 6/16/2017 USCG-2017-0487 Special Local Regulations Cumberland River, TN 6/17/2017 USCG-2017-0559 Safety Zones Houghton, MI 6/17/2017 USCG-2017-0405 Special Local Regulations St. Petersburg, FL 6/17/2017 USCG-2017-0567 Security Zones Puget Sound 6/20/2017 USCG-2017-0511 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 6/20/2017 USCG-2017-0519 Safety Zones Biloxi, MS 6/24/2017 USCG-2017-0574 Safety Zones DE and NJ 6/25/2017 USCG-2017-0623 Security Zones Cleveland, OH 6/28/2017 USCG-2012-1036 Safety Zones Port Long Island 6/29/2017 USCG-2017-0615 Safety Zones Traverse City, Michigan 6/29/2017 USCG-2017-0465 Safety Zones Jacksonville, FL 6/30/2017 USCG-2015-0371 Safety Zones Tanapag Harbor, Saipan 8/4/2015 USCG-2016-0977 Security Zones Cleveland, OH 10/21/2016 USCG-2016-0085 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 3/25/2017 USCG-2016-0086 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 3/26/2017 USCG-2017-0264 Security Zones San Diego Bay, CA 3/28/2017 USCG-2017-0128 Special Local Regulations Tuscaloosa, AL 4/1/2017 USCG-2016-0087 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 4/1/2017 USCG-2017-0271 Safety Zones Apra Outer Harbor, GU 4/7/2017 USCG-2017-0288 Safety Zones Catskill, NY 4/7/2017 USCG-2017-0235 Safety Zones Savannah, GA 4/8/2017 USCG-2017-0205 Safety Zones Onslow County, NC 4/10/2017 USCG-2017-0013 Safety Zones Pittsburgh, PA 4/17/2017 USCG-2017-0017 Safety Zones Daytona Beach, FL 4/21/2017 USGC-2017-0247 Safety Zones Panama City, FL 4/21/2017 USCG-2017-0214 Safety Zones Piti, GU 4/21/2017 USCG-2017-0168 Special Local Regulations Corsica River, MD 4/22/2017 USGC-2017-0031 Safety Zones Myrtle Beach, SC 4/23/2017 USCG-2017-0337 Security Zones Oahu, HI 4/23/2017 USCG-2017-0296 Safety Zones Tennessee River 4/24/2017 USCG-2017-0361 Safety Zones U.S. Virgin Island 4/29/2017 USCG-2017-0381 Safety Zones St. Louis, MO 5/2/2017 USCG-2017-0295 Safety Zones Upper Mississippi River 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0380 Security Zones Manhattan, NY 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0380 Security Zones Manhattan, NY 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0138 Safety Zones Fort Lauderdale, FL 5/4/2017 USCG-2017-0249 Safety Zones Mobile, Al 5/5/2017 USCG-2017-0090 Security Zones Pittsburgh, PA 5/5/2017 USCG-2017-0293 Safety Zones Port Lake Michigan 5/13/2017 USCG-2017-0280 Security Zones Montgomery County, MD 5/14/2017 USGC-2017-0431 Safety Zones St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 5/15/2017 USCG-2017-0432 Safety Zones St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 5/16/2017 USCG-2017-0413 Security Zones New London, CT 5/17/2017 USCG-2017-0123 Safety Zones Charleston, SC 5/18/2017 USCG-2017-0123 Safety Zones Charleston, SC 5/18/2017 USCG-2017-0352 Safety Zones Apra Outer Harbor, GU 5/18/2017 USCG-2017-0206 Special Local Regulations Urbanna, VA 5/20/2017 USCG-2017-0477 Safety Zones Vicksburg, MS 5/23/2017 USCG-2017-0479 Safety Zones Vidalia, LA 5/24/2017 USGC-2017-0489 Safety Zones St. Louis, MO 5/26/2017 USCG-2016-0345 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 5/27/2017 USCG-2017-0343 Special Local Regulations Nashville, TN 5/27/2017 USCG-2017-0459 Security Zones Montgomery County, Maryland 5/28/2017 USCG-2017-0382 Safety Zones Merizo, GU 5/28/2017 USCG-2017-0404 Safety Zones Port Lake Michigan 5/28/2017 USCG-2017-0376 Safety Zones San Diego COTP 5/28/2017 USCG-2012-0309 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 6/1/2017 USCG-2017-0193 Safety Zones Beaumont, TX 6/1/2017 USCG-2017-0192 Safety Zones Hackberry, LA 6/2/2017 USCG-2017-0391 Safety Zones Bellaire, OH 6/3/2017 USCG-2017-0358 Safety Zones Lakeside, MO 6/3/2017 USCG-2017-0457 Safety Zones East River, NY 6/4/2017 USCG-2017-0518 Security Zones Cincimnnati, OH 6/7/2017 USCG-2017-0265 Special Local Regulations Parker, AZ 6/10/2017 USCG-2017-0265 Special Local Regulations Parker, AZ 6/10/2017 USCG-2017-0199 Safety Zones Vermilion, OH 6/16/2017 USCG-2017-0487 Special Local Regulations Cumberland River, TN 6/17/2017 USCG-2017-0559 Safety Zones Houghton, MI 6/17/2017 USCG-2017-0405 Special Local Regulations St. Petersburg, FL 6/17/2017 USCG-2017-0567 Security Zones Puget Sound 6/20/2017 USCG-2017-0511 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 6/20/2017 USCG-2017-0519 Safety Zones Biloxi, MS 6/24/2017 USCG-2017-0574 Safety Zones DE and NJ 6/25/2017 USCG-2017-0623 Security Zones Cleveland, OH 6/28/2017 USCG-2012-1036 Safety Zones Port Long Island 6/29/2017 USCG-2017-0615 Safety Zones Traverse City, Michigan 6/29/2017 USCG-2017-0465 Safety Zones Jacksonville, FL 6/30/2017
    Dated: January 30, 2018. Katia Kroutil, Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02095 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 [USCG-2018-0047] 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

    DATES:

    This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between January 2017 to March 2017, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on this document contact Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between January 2017 to March 2017unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

    Docket No. Type Location Effective
  • date
  • USCG-2016-0491 Safety Zones Bay Swim, IX 6/18/2016 USCG-2016-0316 Security Zones Tampa, FL 6/26/2016 USCG-2016-0569 Safety Zones Lorain, OH 6/26/2016 USCG-2016-0615 Safety Zones Dunkirk, NY 7/2/2016 USCG-2016-0480 Safety Zones LaPointe, WI 7/4/2016 USCG-2016-0622 Safety Zones Port Buffalo Zone 7/4/2016 USCG-2016-0566 Safety Zones Port Buffalo Zone 7/4/2016 USCG-2016-0511 Safety Zones Augusta, GA 7/14/2016 USCG-2016-0515 Safety Zones Lorain, OH 7/25/2016 USCG-2016-0827 Safety Zones Menasha, WI 9/10/2016 USCG-2016-0942 Security Zones Cleveland, OH 10/13/2016 USCG-2016-0919 Safety Zones Harsens Island, MI 10/22/2016 USCG-2016-0271 Safety Zones Jacksonville Beach, FL 11/2/2016 USCG-2016-1007 Drawbridges Chesapeake, VA 12/3/2016 USCG-2016-0741 Notices Charleston, SC 12/10/2016 USCG-2016-0923 Safety Zones Baton Rouge, LA 12/31/2016 USCG-2017-0049 Drawbridges Isleton, CA 1/7/2017 USCG-2017-0014 Security Zones Detroit, MI 1/9/2017 USCG-2017-0024 Security Zones Detroit, MI 1/10/2017 USCG-2017-0038 Safety Zones Virginia Beach, VA 1/13/2017 USCG-2017-0046 Safety Zones Vero Beach, FL 1/18/2017 USCG-2017-0052 Security Zones New York City, NY 1/19/2017 USCG-2016-0905 Safety Zones Daytona Beach, FL 1/19/2017 USCG-2017-0065 Safety Zones Newburyport, MA 1/25/2017 USCG-2016-1055 Safety Zones New Orleans, LA 1/26/2017 USCG-2017-0006 Safety Zones Manhattan, NY 1/26/2017 USCG-2016-0993 Special Local Regulations Tampa, FL 1/28/2017 USCG-2017-0072 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 2/3/2017 USCG-2017-0036 Special Local Regulations Bradenton, FL 2/4/2017 USCG-2017-0078 Security Zones Philadelphia, PA 2/4/2017 USCG-2017-0088 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 2/10/2017 USCG-2017-0093 Safety Zones Canton, KY 2/14/2017 USCG-2017-0107 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 2/17/2017 USCG-2016-0345 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 2/17/2017 USCG-2017-0115 Safety Zones Harrison, Twp, MI 2/25/2017 USCG-2017-0157 Security Zones Newport News, VA 3/2/2017 USCG-2017-0145 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 3/3/2017 USCG-2017-0160 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 3/3/2017 USCG-2017-0119 Safety Zones St. Petersburg, Florida 3/9/2017 USCG-2017-0187 Safety Zones Cameron, LA 3/9/2017 USCG-2017-0141 Drawbridges Rio Vista, CA 3/10/2017 USCG-2017-0080 Drawbridges Sacramento, CA 3/11/2017 USCG-2017-0051 Safety Zones Newport News, VA 3/12/2017 USCG-2017-0165 Drawbridges Little Prairie Ridge, Louisiana 3/13/2017 USCG-2017-0182 Safety Zones Brooklyn, NY 3/17/2017 USCG-2017-0190 Safety Zones San Juan, PR 3/22/2017 USCG-2016-1019 Safety Zones Apra Harbor, Guam 3/23/2017 USCG-2017-0254 Safety Zones Virgin Islands 3/31/2017 USCG-2016-0491 Safety Zones Bay Swim, IX 6/18/2016 USCG-2016-0316 Security Zones Tampa, FL 6/26/2016 USCG-2016-0569 Safety Zones Lorain, OH 6/26/2016 USCG-2016-0615 Safety Zones Dunkirk, NY 7/2/2016 USCG-2016-0453 Safety Zones Wolcott, NY 7/3/2016 USCG-2016-0480 Safety Zones LaPointe, WI 7/4/2016 USCG-2016-0622 Safety Zones Port Buffalo Zone 7/4/2016 USCG-2016-0566 Safety Zones Port Buffalo Zone 7/4/2016 USCG-2016-0511 Safety Zones Augusta, GA 7/14/2016 USCG-2016-0515 Safety Zones Lorain, OH 7/25/2016 USCG-2016-0827 Safety Zones Menasha, WI 9/10/2016 USCG-2016-0942 Security Zones Cleveland, OH 10/13/2016 USCG-2016-0919 Safety Zones Harsens Island, MI 10/22/2016 USCG-2016-0271 Safety Zones Jacksonville Beach, FL 11/2/2016 USCG-2016-1007 Drawbridges (Part 117) Chesapeake, VA 12/3/2016 USCG-2016-0741 Notices Charleston, SC 12/10/2016 USCG-2016-0923 Safety Zones Baton Rouge, LA 12/31/2016 USCG-2017-0049 Drawbridges Isleton, CA 1/7/2017 USCG-2017-0014 Security Zones Detroit, MI 1/9/2017 USCG-2017-0024 Security Zones Detroit, MI 1/10/2017 USCG-2017-0038 Safety Zones Virginia Beach, VA 1/13/2017 USCG-2017-0046 Safety Zones Vero Beach, FL 1/18/2017 USCG-2017-0052 Security Zones New York City, NY 1/19/2017 USCG-2016-0905 Safety Zones Daytona Beach, FL 1/19/2017 USCG-2017-0065 Safety Zones Newburyport, MA 1/25/2017 USCG-2016-1055 Safety Zones New Orleans, LA 1/26/2017 USCG-2017-0006 Safety Zones Manhattan, NY 1/26/2017 USCG-2016-0993 Special Local Regulations Tampa, FL 1/28/2017 USCG-2017-0072 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 2/3/2017 USCG-2017-0036 Special Local Regulations Bradenton, FL 2/4/2017 USCG-2017-0078 Security Zones Philadelphia, PA 2/4/2017 USCG-2017-0088 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 2/10/2017 USCG-2017-0093 Safety Zones Canton, KY 2/14/2017 USCG-2017-0107 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 2/17/2017 USCG-2016-0345 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 2/17/2017 USCG-2017-0115 Safety Zones Harrison, Twp, MI 2/25/2017 USCG-2017-0157 Security Zones Newport News, VA 3/2/2017 USCG-2017-0145 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 3/3/2017 USCG-2017-0160 Security Zones Palm Beach, FL 3/3/2017 USCG-2017-0119 Safety Zones St. Petersburg, Florida 3/9/2017 USCG-2017-0187 Safety Zones Cameron, LA 3/9/2017 USCG-2017-0141 Drawbridges Rio Vista, CA 3/10/2017 USCG-2017-0080 Drawbridges Sacramento, CA 3/11/2017 USCG-2017-0051 Safety Zones Newport News, VA 3/12/2017 USCG-2017-0165 Drawbridges Little Prairie Ridge, Louisiana 3/13/2017 USCG-2017-0182 Safety Zones Brooklyn, NY 3/17/2017 USCG-2017-0190 Safety Zones San Juan, PR 3/22/2017 USCG-2016-1019 Safety Zones Apra Harbor, Guam 3/23/2017 USCG-2017-0254 Safety Zones Virgin Islands 3/31/2017
    Dated: January 30, 2018. Katia Kroutil, Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02094 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165 [USCG-2018-0049] 2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

    DATES:

    This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between July 2017 to September 2017, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on this document contact Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between July 2017 to September 2017 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

    Docket No. Type Location Effective date USCG-2017-0363 Safety Zones St. Croix, USVI 5/3/2017 USCG-2017-0368 Safety Zones Lorain, OH 7/1/2017 USCG-2017-0570 Safety Zones Michigan Zone 7/1/2017 USCG-2017-0638 Safety Zones Joliet, IL 7/1/2017 USCG-2017-0475 Special Local Gulport, FL 7/1/2017 USCG-2017-0493 Safety Zones South Point, OH 7/1/2017 USCG-2017-0636 Safety Zones Marblehead, OH 7/2/2017 USCG-2017-0596 Special Local Regulations Greenup, KY 7/2/2017 USCG-2017-0367 Safety Zones Conneaut, OH 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0266 Safety Zones Port Buffalo Zone 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0546 Safety Zones New Albany, IN 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0415 Safety Zones Michigan Zone 7/3/2017 USGC-2017-0642 Safety Zones Port Buffalo Zone 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0003 Safety Zones Benton County, WA 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0540 Safety Zones Clarksville, TN 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0504 Safety Zones Chattanooga, TN 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0515 Safety Zones Knoxville, TN 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0653 Safety Zones Newport, KY 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0639 Safety Zones Surf City, NC 7/3/2017 USCG-2017-0309 Special Local Regulations Manhattan, NY 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0587 Safety Zones Gallipolis, OH 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0478 Safety Zones Greenup, KY 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0632 Safety Zones Toledo, OH 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0575 Safety Zones Wheeling, WV 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0582 Safety Zones Chester, WV 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0566 Safety Zones Naval Base, Guam 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0136 Safety Zones Myrtle Beach, SC 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0301 Safety Zones Charleston, SC 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0285 Safety Zones Murrells Inlet, SC 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0022 Safety Zones Charleston, SC 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0587 Safety Zones Gallipolis, OH 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0650 Safety Zones Mobile, AL 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0583 Safety Zones Henderson, KY 7/4/2017 USCG-2017-0004 Safety Zones Skamokawa, WA 7/6/2017 USCG-2017-0001 Safety Zones Bainbridge Island, WA 7/8/2017 USCG-2017-0590 Safety Zones Port Long Island 7/8/2017 USCG-2012-1036 Safety Zones Port Long Island 7/15/2017 USCG-2017-0682 Regulated Navigation Areas Columbia River, Wauna 7/18/2017 USCG-2017-0701 Safety Zones Red Wing, MN 7/20/2017 USCG-2017-0541 Safety Zones Ocean City, NJ 7/22/2017 USCG-2017-0669 Safety Zones Liberty Island, NY 7/23/2017 USCG-2017-0744 Safety Zones Winona, MN 7/26/2017 USCG-2017-0334 Special Local Regulations Tacoma, WA 7/29/2017 USCG-2017-0736 Special Local Regulations Chequamegon Bay, WI 7/31/2017 USCG-2017-0709 Safety Zones Cincinnati, OH 8/3/2017 USCG-2017-0771 Safety Zones Gulport, MS 8/4/2017 USCG-2017-0729 Special Local Regulations Cincinnati, OH 8/5/2017 USCG-2017-0739 Safety Zones Catoosa, OK 8/5/2017 USCG-2017-0756 Safety Zones Incline Village, NV 8/6/2017 USCG-2017-0814 Safety Zones Port Long Island 8/10/2017 USCG-2017-0535 Safety Zones Cincinnati, Ohio 8/11/2017 USCG-2017-0780 Safety Zones Seattle, WA 8/16/2017 USCG-2016-0507 Safety Zones Oahu, HI 8/16/2017 USCG-2017-0738 Safety Zones Township, MI 8/17/2017 USCG-2017-0757 Safety Zones Rochester, PA 8/18/2017 USCG-2017-0802 Special Local Regulations Charleston, WV 8/19/2017 USCG-2017-0746 Safety Zones Cincinnati, Ohio 8/22/2017 USCG-2017-0776 Safety Zones San Francisco Bay 8/23/2017 USCG-2017-0735 Safety Zones San Francisco, CA 8/27/2017 USCG-2017-0565 Safety Zones Baton Rouge, LA 9/2/2017 USCG-2017-0805 Safety Zones Point Pleasant, WV 9/2/2017 USCG-2017-0833 Special Local Regulations Detroit, MI 9/3/2017 USCG-2017-0774 Special Local Regulations Louisville, KY 9/4/2017 USCG-2017-0835 Safety Zones Detroit, MI 9/7/2017 USCG-2017-0800 Drawbridges San Francisco, CA 9/7/2017 USCG-2017-0588 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 9/8/2017 USCG-2017-0845 Safety Zones Clifton, TN 9/9/2017 USCG-2017-0782 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 9/9/2017 USCG-2017-0859 Security Zones Grosse Point Park, MI 9/9/2017 USCG-2017-0836 Special Local Regulations Keweenaw Waterway, MI 9/9/2017 USCG-2017-0813 Safety Zones Nashville, TN 9/10/2017 USCG-2017-0683 Safety Zones Deep Water Bay, Cypress Island 9/11/2017 USCG-2017-0876 Drawbridges Niantic, CT 9/14/2017 USCG-2017-0797 Safety Zones Port Arthur, TX 9/14/2017 USCG-2017-0853 Safety Zones New Bern, NC 9/15/2017 USCG-2017-0906 Regulated Navigation Areas Atlantic Ocean, FL 9/16/2017 USCG-2017-0624 Security Zones Beaumont, TX 9/18/2017 USCG-2017-0893 Safety Zones Apra Outer Harbor, GU 9/18/2017 USCG-2017-0693 Special Local Regulations Nashville, TN 9/23/2017 USCG-2017-0895 Special Local Regulations Monroe, LA 9/23/2017 USCG-2017-0888 Special Local Regulations Suisun Bay, Concord, CA 9/25/2017 USCG-2017-0787 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 9/26/2017 USCG-2017-0892 Safety Zones Philadelphia, PA 9/29/2017 USCG-2017-0652 Special Local Regulations Clearwater Beach, FL 9/30/2017 USCG-2017-0197 Safety Zones Chicago, IL 9/30/2017 USCG-2017-0698 Special Local Regulations Florence, AL 9/30/2017 USCG-2017-0940 Security Zones (Part 165) Jersey City, NJ 9/30/2017 Dated: January 30, 2018. Katia Kroutil, Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02096 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0085] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, Washington, DC 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 Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge across the Anacostia River, mile 1.2, at Washington, DC. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the construction and replacement of the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with a fixed bridge on an alignment 18 feet south of the existing bridge. The current Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge will be removed in its entirety. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during construction.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on February 2, 2018, through 6 a.m. on August 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0085], 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. Marty Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6422, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The District of Columbia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation. This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate the construction and replacement of the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with a fixed bridge on an alignment 18 feet south of the existing bridge. The existing bridge is a swing span bridge, and has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 42 feet above mean high water.

    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.253. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on February 2, 2018, through 6 a.m. on August 1, 2018. The Anacostia River is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02082 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824; FRL-9973-59-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements concerning interstate transport provisions.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0824. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 353-8777 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is being addressed by this document? II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On December 4, 2015, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a request for EPA to approve its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On December 7, 2017, EPA proposed to approve the portion of the submission dealing with requirements one and two (otherwise known as “prongs” one and two) of the provision for interstate pollution transport under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the “good neighbor” provision.

    The December 4, 2015 OEPA submittal included a demonstration that Ohio's SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the interstate transport of pollution, and demonstrates additional revisions to the Ohio SIP that further address interstate transport based on requests by the neighboring states of Indiana and West Virginia. Ohio's submittal also included a technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that demonstrates that current controls are adequate for Ohio to show that it meets prongs one and two of the “good neighbor” provision. Review of the state's submittal included ensuring that Ohio's analysis was corroborated by updated modeling projections in guidance issued by EPA after the submittal on December 4, 2015. After review, EPA proposed to approve Ohio's request relating to prongs one and two of the “good neighbor” provision.

    II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?

    Our December 7, 2017 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period closed on January 8, 2018. EPA received 17 anonymous comments that were not relevant and/or not adverse, and one supportive comment from a student at Cornell University.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA approved the majority of Ohio's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission on September 19, 2016 (81 FR 64072). In today's action, EPA is approving the portion of Ohio's December 4, 2015 submission certifying that the current Ohio SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 3, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.1870, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry for “Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 52.1870 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Title Applicable
  • geographical or
  • non-attainment area
  • State date EPA approval Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 12/4/2015 2/2/2018, [insert Federal Register citation] Approved CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the visibility portion of (D)(i)(II), prong four. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-02047 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0211; FRL-9973-58—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Indiana on March 30, 2016. Indiana's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. Indiana's progress report notes that Indiana has implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by the date of the progress report and that Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Indiana are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018. Indiana also determined that the state's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet these reasonable progress goals for the first implementation period and requires no substantive revision at this time.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0211. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, at (312) 886-3901 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. Background II. What action is EPA taking? III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.

    On December 7, 2017 (82 FR 57694), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Indiana's March 30, 2016 Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report SIP revision on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

    The specific details of Indiana's March 30, 2016 SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received four comments on the proposed action, three were not relevant to the rulemaking and one was in support of the proposed approval of the Regional Haze Progress Report SIP.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Indiana's March 30, 2016 Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report SIP submittal as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 3, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 23, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 52.770 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report 3/30/2016 2/2/2018, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-02053 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 160920861-8031-03] RIN 0648-XE900 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery; 2018 Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Specifications AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are implementing specifications for the 2018 Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery, including an annual catch limit and total allowable landings limit. This action is necessary to implement allowable red crab harvest levels that will prevent overfishing and allow harvesting of optimum yield. This action is intended to establish the allowable 2018 harvest levels, consistent with the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan.

    DATES:

    The final specifications for the 2018 Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery are effective March 5, 2018, through February 28, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery is managed by the New England Fishery Management Council. The Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan includes a specification process that requires the New England Fishery Management Council to recommend, on a triennial basis, an acceptable biological catch, an annual catch limit, and total allowable landings. Collectively, these are the red crab specifications. Prior to the start of fishing year 2017, the Council recommended status quo specifications for the 2017-2019 fishing years (Table 1).

    Table 1—Council-Approved 2017-2019 Red Crab Specifications Metric ton Million lb Maximum Sustainable Yield undetermined Overfishing Limit undetermined Optimum Yield undetermined Acceptable Biological Catch 1,775 3.91 Annual Catch Limit 1,775 3.91 Total Allowable Landings 1,775 3.91

    On February 22, 2017, we approved status quo specifications for the 2017 fishing year, effective through February 28, 2018, and we projected status quo quotas for 2018-2019 (82 FR 11322). At the end of each fishing year, we evaluate catch information and determine if the quota has been exceeded. If a quota is exceeded, the regulations at 50 CFR 648.262(b) require a pound-for-pound reduction in a subsequent fishing year. We have reviewed available 2017 fishery information against the projected 2018 specifications. There have been no annual catch limit or total allowable landings overages, nor is there any new biological information that would require altering the projected 2018 specifications. Because no overages occurred in 2017, we are announcing the final specifications for fishing year 2018, as projected in the 2017 specifications rule (82 FR 11322), and outlined above in Table 1. These specifications are not expected to result in overfishing and adequately account for scientific uncertainty.

    The 2018 fishing year starts on March 1, 2018. The fishery management plan allows for the previous year's specifications to remain in place until replaced by a subsequent specifications action (rollover provision). As a result, the 2017 specifications, also 1,775 mt, remain in effect until replaced by the 2018 specifications included in this rule.

    We will publish notice in the Federal Register of any revisions to these specifications if an overage occurs in 2018 that would require adjusting the 2019 projected specifications. We will provide notice of the final 2019 specifications prior to the March 1, 2019, start of the fishing year.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.

    This rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), we find good cause to waive prior public notice and opportunity for public comment on the catch limit and allocation adjustments because allowing time for notice and comment is unnecessary. The proposed rule provided the public with the opportunity to comment on the 2017-2019 specifications, including the projected 2018 and 2019 specifications (81 FR 86687, December 1, 2016). No comments were received on the proposed rule, and this final rule contains no changes from the projected 2018 specifications that were included in both the December 1, 2016, proposed rule and the February 22, 2017, final rule. The public and industry participants expect this action, because previously, in both the proposed rule and the final rule, we alerted the public that we would conduct a review of the latest available catch information in each of the interim years of the multi-year specifications, and announce the final quota prior to the March 1 start of the fishing year. Thus, the proposed and final rules that contained the projected 2017-2019 specifications provided a full opportunity for the public to comment on the substance and process of this action.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, previously certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that the 2017-2019 red crab specifications would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Implementing status quo specifications for 2018 will not change the conclusions drawn in that previous certification to the SBA. Because advance notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required for this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., do not apply to this rule. Therefore, no new regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02148 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 160808696-7010-02] RIN 0648-BH47 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2017-18 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule announces inseason changes to management measures in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), is intended to allow fisheries to access more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and depleted stocks.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective February 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Palmigiano, phone: 206-526-4491, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org/.

    Background

    The PCGFMP and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and management measures are developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and are implemented by NMFS.

    The final rule to implement the 2017-18 harvest specifications and management measures for most species of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery was published on February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9634).

    The Council, in coordination with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, recommended the following changes to current groundfish management measures at its November 13-20, 2017, meeting: (1) Increasing the big skate trip limits for the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, (2) decreasing the sablefish trip limits for limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) daily trip limit (DTL) fisheries north of 36° North Latitude (N lat.), and (3) increasing the lingcod trip limits for the LEFG and OA fisheries north of 40°10′ N lat.

    Big Skate Trip Limits for the Shorebased IFQ Program

    At the November 2017 Council meeting, the Council's Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) recommended higher trip limits for big skate for the shorebased IFQ program in 2018. For 2017-18, the annual catch limit (ACL) was set at 494 metric tons (mt), the fishery harvest guideline (HG) was 437 mt, and the trawl allocation was 414.8 mt, which includes big skate caught by the at-sea fleet. Bi-monthly trip limits for 2017-18 were set at 5,000 pounds (lbs) (January-February), 25,000 lbs (March-April), 30,000 lbs (May-June), 35,000 lbs (July-August), 10,000 lbs (September-October), and 5,000 lbs (November-December).

    In November 2017, based on the partial catch data for 2017, the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) estimated that attainment of big skate in the IFQ fishery would be 88 percent for 2018, approximately 365 mt. Given that the projected attainment of big skate was approaching full attainment with status quo trip limits, the GMT modeled modest increases in trip limits for 2018 using the 2016 Groundfish Mortality Report data and 2017 catch data. The GMT's use of the additional 2017 catch data changed the projected 2018 annual targets relative to the original annual targets that were used to set the 2017-18 big skate trip limits. The two trip limit alternatives modeled by the GMT would result in higher estimated attainments (94 and 98 percent) of big skate than the estimated 88 percent attainment under the status quo trip limits. In order to maximize opportunity for vessels and increase attainment, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing, by modifying Tables 1 (North and South) to part 660, subpart D, the following trip limits for big skate in the IFQ program: Period 1, 5,000 lbs, Period 2, 30,000 lbs, Period 3, 35,000 lbs, Period 4, 40,000 lbs, Period 5, 15,000 lbs, and Period 6, 5,000 lbs. These increased trip limits are expected to increase projected attainment of the big skate IFQ allocation to 98 percent in 2018.

    LEFG and OA Sablefish DTL Fisheries North of 36° N Lat.

    Sablefish are distributed coastwide with harvest specifications split north and south of 36° N lat. Trip limits in the LEFG and OA DTL fisheries, for species such as sablefish, are intended to keep attainment of the non-trawl HG within the ACL. The trip limits for sablefish for 2017-18 were established through the final rule for the 2017-18 harvest specifications (82 FR 9634) based on catch data through 2015.

    Inseason catch data from 2017 suggested possible under-attainment of the sablefish non-trawl HG. During the September 2017 Council meeting, the GMT made model-based landings projections for the LEFG and OA sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N lat. for the remainder of 2017 to assist the Council in evaluating potential increases to sablefish trip limits. These projections used the most recent information available, including inseason catch data from 2017, and showed under-attainment of the 2017 sablefish non-trawl HG. Based on these projections, the LEFG and OA sablefish trip limits were raised through an inseason action on October 19, 2017 (82 FR 48656). The 2017 trip limits established through the September inseason action for LEFG and OA sablefish remain in place for 2018 until changed.

    At the November 2017 Council meeting, the GMT updated the projections for the attainment of the sablefish HG for 2018 with data through October 31, 2017. These projections showed possible attainment of the sablefish allocation between 95.2 and 125.2 percent for the LEFG fishery, and 78.8 and 98.5 percent for the OA fishery. If the current trip limits remain in place there is a projected potential to exceed the sablefish HG, with attainment greater than one hundred percent in the LEFG fishery north of 36° N and close to one hundred percent in the OA north fishery.

    To ensure harvest remains below the sablefish ACL, the Council elected to follow a precautionary approach at the outset of 2018, by recommending decreases to sablefish trip limits in LEFG and OA sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N lat. for all periods in 2018. This approach of decreasing trip limits initially minimizes the likelihood of dramatic decreases in trip limits or closures for these fisheries later in the season, if the attainment occurs at a rate that is likely to exceed the sector's HG. With a precautionary approach in earlier periods in the year, trip limits may be increased throughout the year if attainment is projected to remain under the ACL. Trip limits for the LEFG sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N lat. are designated at Tables 2 (North and South) to part 660, subpart E. Trip limits for the OA sablefish DTL fishery north of 36° N are designated at Tables 3 (North and South) to part 660, subpart F.

    The Council initially recommended a change to sablefish trip limits for all periods for the LEFG fishery. However, because NMFS cannot decrease trip limits in the middle of a trip limit period, NMFS is implementing, by modifying Tables 2 (North and South) to part 660, subpart E, trip limit changes for the LEFG sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N lat. for periods 2 through 6 only. The trip limit for these periods (2-6) would be: 1,100 lbs per week, not to exceed 3,300 lbs/2 months. Trip limits for LEFG sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N lat. for period 1 will remain as status quo.

    The Council also recommended a change to sablefish trip limits for all periods for the OA fishery. However, because NMFS cannot decrease trip limits in the middle of a trip limit period, NMFS is implementing, by modifying Tables 3 (North and South) to part 660, subpart F, trip limits for sablefish in the OA sablefish DTL fishery north of 36° N lat. for periods 2 through 6 only. The trip limit for these periods (2-6) would be: 300 lbs/day, or 1 landing per week up to 1,000 lbs, not to exceed 2,000 lbs/2 months. Trip limits for OA sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N lat. for period 1 will remain as status quo.

    Under these revised, lower limits, the GMT projects attainment in the LEFG between 75.1 and 102 percent, down from the status quo trip limit attainment between 95.2 and 125.2 percent. OA is predicted to be within 74.2 to 92.7 percent under revised trip limits, down from 78.8 to 98.5 percent under status quo. NMFS and the GMT will continue to monitor attainment of sablefish throughout 2018 and can revise these trip limits through future inseason actions as needed to ensure optimized opportunity is available to harvesters, while maintaining a precautionary approach to remain within the HG.

    LEFG and OA Lingcod Fisheries North of 40°10′ N Lat.

    Lingcod north of 40°10′ N lat. has had low attainment in recent years (approximately 30 percent in the LEFG and OA, or non-trawl, sectors in 2016). Based on 2015 West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) data, current trip limits are resulting in discards of incidentally caught lingcod that would likely be landed under increased trip limits, as only approximately half of sampled regulatory discards (i.e., 1,400 lbs in OA and 300 lbs in LEFG fishery) were due to minimum size limits; the rest are assumed to be due to reaching trip limits. The primary objective of trip limits for lingcod has been to maximize opportunity while staying within the biological confines of overfished species limits, such as yelloweye rockfish.

    No lingcod increases in trip limits were proposed during the 2017-18 biennial harvest specifications and management measures because there were on-going concerns about the incidental catch of yelloweye rockfish. However, updates to the nearshore model, including use of newly available 2016 data in the recalculation of discard ratios by the WCGOP and revised discard mortality rates, indicate there is now sufficient yelloweye rockfish for the Council to consider higher lingcod trip limit increases for 2018. The GMT determined that the projected non-trawl yelloweye rockfish impacts associated with the higher lingcod trip limits would be below what was analyzed in the 2017-18 harvest specifications and management measures, predominantly due to the updated discard mortality rates applied in the nearshore model. The GMT projected ranges of potential lingcod and yelloweye impacts from the revised trip limits to account for some inter-annual variability. The projected alternative trip limits would result in 84 to 108 mt of lingcod and 1.9 to 2.2 mt of yelloweye taken. These projected yelloweye impacts are within the nearshore HG shares for Oregon (1.4 mt) and California (0.6 mt), as well as below the non-nearshore HG (0.7 mt). These impacts will keep the 2018 removals well within the upper range analyzed in the 2015-2016 Biennial Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Final Environmental Impact Statement.

    Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing, by modifying Table 2 (North) to part 660, subpart E, the following trip limits for lingcod for the LEFG fishery north of 40°10′ N latitude: January-April, 600 lbs/2 months; May-October, 1,400 lbs/2 months; November, 700 lbs; and for December, 400 lbs. The Council also recommended and NMFS is implementing, by modifying Table 3 (North) to part 660, subpart F, the following trip limits for lingcod for the OA fishery north of 40°10′ N latitude: January-April, 300 lbs per month; May-November, 700 lbs per month; and for December, 300 lbs per month.

    These increased trip limits will provide increased fishing opportunity specifically for winter time access, and also will provide a steady flow of fish to markets, while still being conservative regarding yelloweye rockfish impacts.

    Classification

    This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.

    This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.

    NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective February 2, 2018. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established through a notice and comment rulemaking for 2017-18 (82 FR 9634).

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.

    Big Skate Trip Limits for the Shorebased IFQ Program

    At its November 2017 meeting, the Council recommended an increase to shorebased IFQ program big skate trip limits be implemented as quickly as possible to allow harvest of big skate to better attain, but not exceed, the 2018 ACL. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to undergo proposed and final rulemaking before this action needs to be in effect. Affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing the IFQ program using the best available science to increase harvesting opportunities without exceeding the ACLs for federally managed species in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law. These increases to trip limits must be implemented as quickly as possible in 2018, to allow IFQ program fishermen an opportunity to harvest higher limits for big skate coastwide throughout 2018.

    It is in the public interest for fishermen to have an opportunity to harvest big skate, which contributes revenue to the coastal communities of Washington, Oregon, and California. This action, if implemented quickly, is anticipated to allow catch of big skate through the end of the 2018 to approach but not exceed the ACL, and allows harvest as intended by the Council, consistent with the best scientific information available, while providing for a responsible level of increased economic opportunity for participants.

    LEFG and OA DTL Sablefish Fisheries North of 36° N Lat.

    At its November 2017 Council meeting, the Council recommended that a decrease to LEFG and OA sablefish north of 36° N lat. trip limits be implemented as quickly as possible to keep the predicted harvest of sablefish from exceeding the non-trawl HG (and correspondingly the 2018 ACL). NMFS determined that there was not sufficient time after that meeting to undergo proposed and final rulemaking before this action needs to be in effect. Affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing the LEFG and OA fixed gear sablefish DTL fishery using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, the ACLs for federally managed species in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law. This action, if implemented quickly, is anticipated to allow harvesters to maintain a steady catch of sablefish through the end of the 2018 that will approach but not exceed the ACL, prevent sharp decreases in later season trip limits to maintain catch below the ACL, and allow harvest as intended by the Council, consistent with the best scientific information available.

    LEFG and OA Lingcod Fisheries North of 40°10′ N Lat.

    At its November 2017 meeting, the Council recommended an increase to LE and OA fixed gear lingcod trip limits north of 40°10′N. lat. be implemented as quickly as possible to allow harvest of lingcod to better attain, but not exceed, the 2018 ACL. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to undergo proposed and final rulemaking before this action needs to be in effect before the start of or as early as possible in the 2018 fishing season. Affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing the LE and OA fixed gear fishery using the best available science to increase harvesting opportunities without exceeding the ACLs for federally managed species in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law. These increases to trip limits must be implemented as quickly as possible to allow LE and OA fixed gear fishermen an opportunity to harvest higher limits for lingcod, particularly early in 2018, during the winter months.

    It is in the public interest for fishermen to have an opportunity to harvest lingcod, which contributes revenue to the coastal communities of Washington, Oregon, and California. This action, if implemented quickly, is anticipated to allow catch of lingcod through the end of the 2018 to approach but not exceed the ACL, and allows harvest as intended by the Council, consistent with the best scientific information available, while providing for a responsible level of increased economic opportunity for participants.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian Fisheries.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. Table 1 (North) to part 660, subpart D, is revised to read as follows: Table 1 (North) to Part 660, Subpart D—Limited Entry Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for Non-IFQ Species and Pacific Whiting North of 40°10″ N Lat. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER02FE18.000 3. Table 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D, is revised to read as follows: Table 1 (South) to Part 660, Subpart D—Limited Entry Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Landing Allowances for Non-IFQ Species and Pacific Whiting South of 40°10″ N Lat. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER02FE18.001 4. Table 2 (North) to part 660, subpart E, is revised to read as follows: Table 2 (North) to Part 660, Subpart E—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear North of 40°10″ N Lat. ER02FE18.002 ER02FE18.003 5. Table 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, is revised to read as follows: Table 2 (South) to Part 660, Subpart E—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Limited Entry Fixed Gear South of 40°10″ N Lat. ER02FE18.004 ER02FE18.005 6. Table 3 (North) to part 660, subpart F, is revised to read as follows: Table 3 (North) to Part 660, Subpart F—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears North of 40°10″ N Lat. ER02FE18.006 ER02FE18.007 7. Table 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F, is revised to read as follows: Table 3 (South) to Part 660, Subpart F—Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Areas and Trip Limits for Open Access Gears South of 40°10″ N Lat. ER02FE18.008 ER02FE18.009
    [FR Doc. 2018-02121 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    83 23 Friday, February 2, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1032; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-4] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Amendment of Class D Airspace, and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Tacoma, WA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tacoma Narrows Airport, Tacoma, WA. This proposal also would remove Class E airspace designated as an extension at Tacoma Narrows Airport. Additionally, this action would update the geographic coordinates of the airport in Class D airspace, and make an editorial change to the Class D description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement. These changes are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1032; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace, amend Class D airspace, and remove E airspace at Tacoma Narrows Airport, Tacoma, WA to support IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1032; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-4”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, establishing Class E surface area airspace, removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, and establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tacoma Narrows Airport, Tacoma, WA.

    Class D airspace would be modified to add a small extension south of the airport within 1.7 miles each side of a 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport.

    Class E surface area airspace would be established coincident with the dimensions of the Class D airspace and effective during the hours when the Class D is not in effect to protect IFR operations continuously.

    Class E airspace designated as an extension would be removed as the extension north of the airport (within 1.8 miles each side of the 009° bearing from the Graye NDB extending from the 4-mile radius to .9 miles north of the NDB) protects no arrival aircraft within 1,000 feet of the surface. Also, the extension to the south (within 1.8 miles each side of the 187° bearing from Scenn OM extending from the 4-mile radius to 1 mile south of the OM; excluding that airspace within the Tacoma, McChord AFB, WA, Class D airspace area) protects no arrival aircraft within 1,000 feet of the surface beyond 5.3 miles south of the airport. By eliminating the unnecessary airspace, the remaining extension to the south would be less than 2 nautical miles in length, and must be Class D.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet would be established at Tacoma Narrows Airport within 4 miles each side of the 007° and 187° bearings from the airport extending to 8 miles north and 7 miles south of the airport. This new airspace would duplicate the larger Seattle Class E airspace area, but would ensure sufficient airspace is designated for Tacoma Narrows Airport in case of any future modification.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM WA D Tacoma, WA [Amended] Tacoma Narrows Airport, WA (Lat. 44°16′05″ N, long. 122°34′41″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,800 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Tacoma Narrows Airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Tacoma, McChord AFB, WA, Class D airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM WA E2 Tacoma, WA [New] Tacoma Narrows Airport, WA (Lat. 44°16′05″ N, long. 122°34′41″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4-mile radius of the Tacoma Narrows Airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Tacoma, McChord AFB, WA, Class D airspace area. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    ANM WA E4 Tacoma, WA [Removed] Tacoma Narrows Airport, WA (Lat. 44°16′05″ N, long. 122°34′41″ W) Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM WA E5 Tacoma, WA [New] Tacoma Narrows Airport, WA (Lat. 44°16′05″ N, long. 122°34′41″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 4 miles each side of the 007° bearing from the Tacoma Narrows Airport extending to 8 miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of a 187° bearing from the airport extending to 7 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 25, 2018. Shawn M. Kozica, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02021 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0223; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-9] Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Casper, WY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend controlled airspace at Casper/Natrona County International Airport, Casper WY. After a biennial review, the FAA proposes to enlarge Class D airspace; remove Class E airspace designated as an extension, reduce Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. Also, this action would update the airport's name and geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. These proposed changes would enhance safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0223; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2017-0223; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-9) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number).

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0223/Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Casper/Natrona County International Airport (formerly Natrona County International Airport) to within a 4.9-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of the airport from the airport 294° bearing clockwise to the airport 193° bearing, and within a 7-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of the airport from the 193° bearing clockwise to the airport 294° bearing.

    This proposal also would remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area.

    Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be reduced to within a 9.5-mile radius of the airport (from a 24-mile radius) from the airport 248° bearing clockwise to the airport 294° bearing, and within a 7-mile radius from the airport 294° bearing clockwise to the airport 004° bearing, with segments extending to 13.5 miles northeast, 10.4 miles east, 16.9 miles southwest. Also, Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be removed since it is wholly contained within the larger Casper Class E en route airspace, and duplication is not needed.

    This proposal would also update the airport's geographic coordinates in the associated Class D and E airspace to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. Lastly, this action would replace the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D and associated Class E airspace legal descriptions. These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM WY D Casper, WY [Amended] Casper/Natrona County International Airport, WY (Lat. 42°54′21″ N, long. 106°27′49″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,800 feet MSL within a 4.9-mile radius of Casper/Natrona County International Airport clockwise from the airport 294° bearing to the airport 193° bearing and within a 7-mile radius of the airport clockwise from the airport 193° bearing to the airport 294° bearing. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM WY E2 Casper, WY [Amended] Casper/Natrona County International Airport, WY (Lat. 42°54′21″ N, long. 106°27′49″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.9-mile radius of Casper/Natrona County International Airport clockwise from the airport 294° bearing to the airport 193° bearing and within a 7-mile radius of the airport clockwise from the airport 193° bearing to the airport 294° bearing. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area ANM WY E4 Casper, WY [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM WY E5 Casper, WY [Amended] Casper/Natrona County International Airport, WY (Lat. 42°54′21″ N, long. 106°27′49″ W)

    That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of Casper/Natrona County International Airport from the airport 248° bearing clockwise to the airport 294° bearing and within a 7-mile radius of the airport from the airport 294° bearing clockwise to the airport 004° bearing and within 3.9 miles northwest and 4.8 miles southeast of the airport 036° bearing extending from the airport to 13.5 miles northeast of the airport and within 3.6 miles each side of the airport 088° bearing extending from the airport to 10.4 miles east of the airport and within 4.1 miles each side of the airport 223° bearing extending from the airport to 17 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 26, 2018. Shawn M. Kozica, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02013 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1091; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-26] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Atwater, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Castle Airport, Atwater, CA, to accommodate airspace redesign due to the decommissioning of the El Nido VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) as the FAA transitions from ground-based to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action would update the airport's geographic coordinates to match the FAA's aeronautical database. This action also would make an editorial change to the Class D airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”. These actions are necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1091; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-26, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Castle Airport, Atwater, CA, to accommodate airspace redesign in support of IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2017-1091; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-26) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see “ADDRESSES” section for address and phone number).

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1091/Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-26.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the “ADDRESSES” section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 for airspace redesign by modifying Class D airspace to a 4.6-mile radius (from a 4.5-mile radius) of the airport from the airport 297° bearing clockwise to the airport 164° bearing, thence direct to the point of beginning. This modification would provide additional Class D airspace south of the airport and would remove Class D airspace southwest and northwest of the airport, thereby containing instrument IFR departure aircraft until reaching 700 feet above the surface, and removing airspace not required by IFR operations. Also, this action would remove the reference to the El Nido VOR/DME in the legal description due to its planned decommissioning as the FAA transitions from ground-based to satellite-based navigation.

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to a 7.2-mile (from a 7-mile) radius of the airport, and would remove the 23-mile extension northwest of the airport.

    Additionally, the airport's geographic coordinates would be updated to match the FAA's aeronautical database for the Class D and Class E airspace areas. An editorial change also would be made to the Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”.

    These actions are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AWP CA D Atwater, CA [Amended] Castle Airport, CA (Lat. 37°22′50″ N, long. 120°34′06″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 2,000 feet MSL within a 4.6-mile radius of Castle Airport beginning at the 297° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 164° bearing, thence to the point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth AWP CA E5 Atwater, CA [Amended] Castle Airport, CA (Lat. 37°22′50″ N, long. 120°34′06″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Castle Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 11, 2018. Shawn M. Kozica, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02012 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 [REG-118067-17] RIN 1545-BO00 Centralized Partnership Audit Regime: Adjusting Tax Attributes AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations implementing section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which was enacted into law on November 2, 2015. The Bipartisan Budge Act repeals the current rules governing partnership audits and replaces them with a new centralized partnership audit regime that, in general, determines, assesses and collects tax at the partnership level. These proposed regulations provide rules addressing how partnerships and their partners adjust tax attributes to take into account partnership adjustments under the centralized partnership audit regime.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by May 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-118067-17), Room 5207, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-118067-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (REG-118067-17).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Allison R. Carmody or Meghan M. Howard of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), (202) 317-5279; concerning the submission of comments, Regina L. Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This document contains proposed regulations that supplement the regulations proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-136118-15) published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2017 (82 FR 27334) (the “June 14 NPRM”) and amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under Subpart—Partners and Partnerships and the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under Subpart—Tax Treatment of Partnership Items to implement the centralized partnership audit regime. Furthermore, certain provisions of the June 14 NPRM are being amended.

    1. The New Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

    For information relating to (1) the new centralized partnership audit regime enacted by the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA), Public Law 114-74 (129 Stat. 58 (2015)) (as amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-113 (129 Stat. 2242 (2015))); (2) Notice 2016-23 (2016-13 I.R.B. 490 (March 28, 2016)), which requested comments on the new partnership audit regime enacted by the BBA; and (3) the temporary regulations (TD 9780, 81 FR 51795 (August 5, 2016)) and a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-105005-16, 81 FR 51835 (August 5, 2016)), which provided the time, form, and manner for a partnership to make an election into the centralized partnership audit regime for a partnership taxable year beginning before the general effective date of the regime, see the Background section of the June 14 NPRM.

    2. Proposed Regulations Implementing the Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

    The June 14 NPRM addressed various issues concerning the scope and process of the new centralized partnership audit regime. Unless otherwise noted, all references to proposed regulations in this preamble refer to the regulations proposed by the June 14 NPRM.

    Proposed §§ 301.6225-1, 301.6225-2, and 301.6225-3 provide rules relating to partnership adjustments, including the computation of the imputed underpayment, modification of the imputed underpayment, and the treatment of adjustments that do not result in an imputed underpayment.

    Proposed § 301.6225-1 sets forth rules for computing the imputed underpayment, and proposed § 301.6225-2 sets forth the rules under which the partnership may request a modification to adjust the imputed underpayment calculated under proposed § 301.6225-1. The modification rules contained in proposed § 301.6225-2 generally allow: (1) Modifications that result in the exclusion of certain adjustments, or portions thereof, from the calculation of the imputed underpayment (such as a modification under proposed § 301.6225-2(d)(2) (amended returns by partners), (d)(3) (tax-exempt partners), (d)(5) (certain passive losses of publicly traded partnerships), (d)(7) (partnerships with partners that are qualified investment entities described in section 860 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code)), (d)(8) (partner closing agreements), and, if applicable, (d)(9) (other modifications)); (2) rate modifications, which affect only the taxable rate applied to the total netted partnership adjustment (described in proposed § 301.6225-2(d)(4)); and (3) modifications to the number and composition of imputed underpayments (described in proposed § 301.6225-2(d)(6)).

    Proposed § 301.6225-3 sets forth rules for the treatment of adjustments that do not result in an imputed underpayment. In general, pursuant to proposed § 301.6225-3(b)(1) the partnership takes the adjustment into account in the adjustment year as a reduction in non-separately stated income or as an increase in non-separately stated loss depending on whether the adjustment is to an item of income or loss. Proposed § 301.6225-3(b)(2) provides that if an adjustment is to an item that is required to be separately stated under section 702 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) the adjustment shall be taken into account by the partnership on its adjustment year return as an adjustment to such separately stated item. Proposed § 301.6225-3(b)(3) provides that an adjustment to a credit is taken into account as a separately stated item.

    Proposed §§ 301.6226-1, 301.6226-2, and 301.6226-3 provide rules relating to the election under section 6226 by a partnership to have its reviewed year partners take into account the partnership adjustments in lieu of paying the imputed underpayment determined under section 6225, the statements the partnership must send to its partners, and the rules for how the partners take into account the adjustments, including the computation and payment of the partners' liability. If a partnership makes the election under section 6226 to “push out” adjustments to its reviewed year partners, the partnership is not liable for the imputed underpayment. Instead, under proposed § 301.6226-3, reviewed year partners must pay any additional chapter 1 tax that results from taking the adjustments reflected on the statements into account in the reviewed year and from changes to the tax attributes in the intervening years. In addition to being liable for the additional tax, the partner must also calculate and pay any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts determined to be applicable during the partnership-level proceeding, and any interest determined in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-3(d).

    Finally, proposed § 301.6241-1 provides definitions for purposes of the centralized partnership audit regime.

    On December 19, 2017, proposed rules (REG-120232-17 and REG-120233-17) were published in the Federal Register (82 FR 60144) that would allow tiered partnerships to push out audit adjustments through to the ultimate taxpayers and provides rules implementing the procedural and administrative aspects of the partnership audit regime. For proposed rules regarding international provisions under the centralized partnership audit regime, see (REG-119337-17) published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2017 (82 FR 56765).

    Explanation of Provisions 1. In General

    These proposed regulations provide rules that were reserved in the June 14 NPRM under proposed §§ 301.6225-4 and 301.6226-4. It also provides related proposed amendments to §§ 1.704-1, 1.705-1, and 1.706-4. Specifically, these rules address how and when partnerships and their partners adjust tax attributes to take into account partnership adjustments under both sections 6225 and 6226. The public provided comments in response to the June 14 NPRM, and some comments discussed issues relevant to the reserved sections under proposed §§ 301.6225-4 and 301.6226-4, which were taken into consideration in drafting these proposed regulations.

    Because these regulations are supplementing the regulations published in the June 14 NPRM, the numbering and ordering of some of the provisions do not follow typical conventions. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS anticipate that these provisions will be appropriately integrated when both these regulations and the proposed regulations in the June 14 NPRM are finalized.

    These proposed rules are consistent with the policy described in “The General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted for 2015” (Bluebook), which explained that “[u]nder the centralized partnership audit regime, the flowthrough nature of the partnership under subchapter K of the Code is unchanged, but the partnership is treated as a point of collection of underpayments that would otherwise be the responsibility of partners.” Joint Comm. on Taxation, JCS-1-16, “General Explanations of Tax Legislation Enacted in 2015”, 57 (2016).

    The preamble to the June 14 NPRM announced that the Treasury Department and the IRS intended to provide additional rules providing for adjustments to the basis of partnership property and book value of any partnership property if the partnership adjustment is a change to an item of gain, loss, amortization or depreciation (i.e., the change is basis derivative). These proposed regulations, when finalized, will provide this guidance.

    2. Provisions Relating to Section 6225 A. In General

    The June 14 NPRM defines a partnership adjustment as any adjustment to any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership (as defined in proposed § 301.6221(a)-1(b)(1)), or any partner's distributive share thereof (as described in proposed § 301.6221(a)-1(b)(2)). See proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(6). Under the rules in proposed § 301.6225-1, each partnership adjustment is either (i) taken into account in the determination of an imputed underpayment, or (ii) considered a partnership adjustment that does not give rise to an imputed underpayment. For a partnership adjustment that is taken into account in the determination of the imputed underpayment, these proposed regulations provide rules for adjusting partnership asset basis and book value, rules for the creation of notional items, rules for allocating these notional items under section 704(b), successor rules for situations in which reviewed year partners (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(9)) are not adjustment year partners (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(2)), and rules for determining the impact of notional items on tax attributes in certain situations. See section (2)(B) of this preamble. These regulations also provide rules for the allocation of any partnership expenditure related to the imputed underpayment. See section (2)(B)(vii) of this preamble. Finally, these regulations provide guidance in the case of a partnership adjustment that does not give rise to an imputed underpayment. See section (2)(C) of this preamble.

    B. Adjustments in the Case of a Partnership Adjustment That Results in an Imputed Underpayment i. In General

    Prior to the enactment of the centralized partnership audit regime, in the case of an adjustment to an item of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit in the context of an examination by the IRS for or related to a partnership, partnership adjustments were generally taken into account by the partners of the partnership for the year under examination by a new or corrected allocation of the relevant item, and partners took those items into account with respect to the partnership year under examination. In contrast, under the centralized partnership audit regime, for a partnership adjustment that is taken into account in the determination of an imputed underpayment, the partnership adjustment is generally taken into account by the partnership in the year in which the related payment obligation (the imputed underpayment) arises. Further, in light of the fact that these partnership adjustments are with respect to a partnership year that is earlier than the year in which the imputed underpayment arises, the partners of the partnership may have changed in the later year.

    Under subchapter K, a partnership generally computes items of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit under section 703, which are then allocated to the partners under section 704. Under section 705, a partner increases its basis in its partnership interest (outside basis) by its distributive share of taxable income of the partnership as determined under section 703(a). However, in the case of a positive partnership adjustment that is taken into account in the determination of an imputed underpayment, section 6225 does not itself provide for an item of taxable income under section 703(a) to be allocated to partners. Instead, calculations are made at the partnership level and the partnership pays the liability in the form of an imputed underpayment. Failure to provide adjustments to outside basis that reflect the partnership adjustments that resulted in the imputed underpayment could lead to a partner being effectively taxed twice on the same item of income, once indirectly on payment of the imputed underpayment and again on a disposition of the partnership interest or on a distribution of cash by the partnership. Taxing the same item of income twice is not consistent with the flowthrough nature of partnerships under subchapter K. Thus, these proposed regulations provide for adjustment to a partner's basis in its interest—and certain other tax attributes that are interdependent with basis under subchapter K—in order to prevent effective double taxation or other distortions.

    Specifically, under proposed § 301.6225-4(a)(1), when there is a partnership adjustment (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(6)), the partnership and its adjustment year partners (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(2)) generally must adjust their specified tax attributes (as defined in proposed § 301.6225-4(a)(2)). Specified tax attributes are the tax basis and book value of a partnership's property, amounts determined under section 704(c), adjustment year partners' bases in their partnership interests, and adjustment year partners' capital accounts determined and maintained in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2). See proposed § 301.6225-4(a)(2).

    In the case of a partnership adjustment that results in an imputed underpayment, the adjustments to specified tax attributes must be made on a partnership-adjustment-by-partnership-adjustment basis, and thus are created separately for each partnership adjustment (whether a negative adjustment or a positive adjustment) without regard to their summation as part of the determination of the total netted partnership adjustment in proposed § 301.6225-1(c)(3). See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(1).

    ii. Manner of Adjusting Specified Tax Attributes

    The partnership must first make appropriate adjustments to the book value and basis of property to take into account any partnership adjustment. See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(2). This rule also requires amounts determined under section 704(c) to be adjusted to take into account the partnership adjustment. The partnership does not make any adjustments to the book value or basis of partnership property with respect to property that was held by the partnership in the reviewed year but is no longer held by the partnership in the adjustment year. Comments are requested as to whether, in these situations, a partnership should be allowed to adjust the basis (or book value) of other partnership property (such as in a manner similar to the rules that apply in allocating section 734(b) adjustments under section 755 (i.e., § 1.755-1(c))).

    Proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3) provides that notional items are then created with respect to the partnership adjustment, and these notional items are then allocated according to the rules described in section (2)(B)(iii) of this preamble. The items are considered notional items because their sole purpose is to affect partner-level specified tax attributes, and thus they are not considered to be items for purposes of adjusting other tax attributes.

    In the case of a partnership adjustment that is an increase to income or gain, a notional item of income or gain is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment. Similarly, in the case of a partnership adjustment that is an increase to an expense or a loss, a notional item of expense or loss is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment. See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(ii) and (iii).

    However, in the case of a partnership adjustment that is a decrease to income or gain, a notional item of expense or loss is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment. Similarly, in the case of a partnership adjustment that is a decrease to an expense or a loss, a notional item of income or gain is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment. See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(iv) and (v). These rules have the effect of reversing out the reviewed year allocation to the extent necessary to reflect the partnership adjustment.

    Thus, under these proposed regulations, an adjustment year partner increases its outside basis for notional income that is allocated to it. Similarly, a partnership that determines and maintains capital accounts in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv) also adjusts capital accounts for notional items. See proposed § 301.6225-4(e), Example 1. In the case of a partnership adjustment that reflects a net increase or net decrease in credits as determined under proposed § 301.6225-1(d), the partnership creates one or more notional items of income, gain, loss, or deduction that reflects the change in the item giving rise to the credit. See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(vi).

    Under these proposed regulations, only specified tax attributes are adjusted. Treasury Department and the IRS considered proposing broader rules for adjusting other tax attributes than those included in these proposed regulations. Tax attributes are defined in the June 14 NPRM as anything that can affect, with respect to a partnership or a partner, the amount or timing of an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit (as defined in proposed § 301.6221(a)-1(b)(1)) or that can affect the amount of tax due in any taxable year. Examples of tax attributes include, but are not limited to, basis and holding period, as well as the character of items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit and carryovers and carrybacks of such items. See proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(10).

    Comments are requested as to whether tax attributes other than specified tax attributes should be adjusted, at either the partner or the partnership level, when the partnership pays an imputed underpayment. Specifically, commenters are requested to address whether guidance should provide a general rule that partnership adjustments and notional items are taken into account as items for all purposes of Subtitle A, except to the extent of the partner's actual tax due. For example, guidance could provide that the partner level tax calculation includes notional items for purposes of calculating the tentative tax due, but that for purposes of determining the ultimate tax due, the partner's share of the imputed underpayment would be subtracted. Alternatively, guidance could provide a list of tax attributes that are generally adjusted, and a list of those that are not.

    Specific tax attributes for which comments are requested include gross income rules for publicly traded partnerships under section 7704(b) and qualified investment entities described in section 860. Other tax attributes for which comments are requested include net operating loss carryforwards, other tax accounting under subchapter K, and those that contain limitations based on adjusted gross income (for example, the earned income credit allowed under section 32, the child tax credit allowed under section 24). Comments are also requested as to whether any special rules should be provided for adjustments to tax attributes in the cross-border context, and how those adjustments should differ, if at all, from adjustments to tax attributes made in the domestic context.

    These regulations also contain rules to coordinate the changes to specified tax attributes made under these rules with other rules of the Code, including the rest of the centralized partnership audit regime. See proposed § 301.6225-4(a)(4). To the extent a partner or partnership appropriately adjusted tax attributes prior to a final determination under subchapter C of chapter 63 with respect to a partnership adjustment (for example, in the context of an amended return modification described in proposed § 301.6225-2(d)(2) or a closing agreement described in proposed § 301.6225-2(d)(8)), those tax attributes are not adjusted under this section. For example, when a partnership requests a modification of the imputed underpayment with respect to a partner-specific tax attribute (for example, a net operating loss) by the filing of an amended return by a partner or by entering into a closing agreement, the partner-specific tax attribute must be reduced to the extent it is used to modify the imputed underpayment.

    The IRS is considering providing in forms, instructions, or other guidance that partnerships will be required to provide information to their partners about the amount and nature of changes to tax attributes and any other information needed by the partners.

    iii. Allocation of Notional Items

    Under section 704(b), a partner's distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit (or item thereof) is determined under the partnership agreement if the allocation under the agreement has substantial economic effect. Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(i) provides that the determination of whether an allocation of income, gain, loss, or deduction (or item thereof) to a partner has substantial economic effect involves a two-part analysis that is made at the end of the partnership year to which the allocation relates. In order for an allocation to have substantial economic effect, the allocation must have both economic effect (within the meaning of § 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)) and be substantial (within the meaning of § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)). If the allocation does not have substantial economic effect, or the partnership agreement does not provide for the allocation, then the allocation must be made in accordance with the partners' interest in the partnership under § 1.704-1(b)(3).

    Commenters recommended applying the existing rules in subchapter K, including section 704(b), in the context of section 6225. While the basic principles of section 704(b) remain sound in the context of notional items, the unique nature of partnership adjustments under section 6225 requires the application of these principles to be modified. See proposed § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(a). Specifically, the allocation of notional items cannot have substantial economic effect because the allocation relates to two different years—while generally determined with respect to the reviewed year, notional items are taken into account in the adjustment year. Thus, the proposed regulations provide that the allocation of a notional item does not have substantial economic effect, but, to address this issue, further provide that the allocation will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if the allocation of a notional item of income or gain described in proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(ii), or expense or loss described in proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(iii), is made in the manner in which the corresponding actual item would have been allocated in the reviewed year under the section 704 regulations. Additionally, the allocation of a notional item of expense or loss described in proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(iv), or a notional item of income or gain described in proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(v), must be allocated to the reviewed year partners that were originally allocated that excess item in the reviewed year (or their successors). See proposed § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xi). As described in section (2)(B)(iv) of this preamble, however, these rules require treating successors as reviewed year partners.

    iv. Successors

    While the determination of partnership adjustments under section 6225 is made with respect to reviewed year partners, it is the adjustment year partners that bear the economic burden (or benefit) of a partnership adjustment. As noted in section (2)(B)(i) of this preamble, outside basis adjustments must be made to avoid effectively taxing the same item of income twice. While this concern is clearest when a reviewed year partner remains a partner in the adjustment year, the same concern generally exists when the interest is transferred as the failure to provide outside basis would result in effectively taxing the same item of income twice, just with respect to two different taxpayers. Thus, these regulations provide successor rules under proposed § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b) for purposes of adjusting specified tax attributes, including outside basis.

    A reviewed year partner's successor is generally defined as either a transferee that succeeds to the transferor partner's capital account under proposed § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(l), or, in the case of a complete liquidation of a partner's interest, as the remaining partners to the extent their interests increased as a result of the liquidated partner's departure. See proposed §§ 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b) and 301.6225-4(e), Example 3.

    The June 14 NPRM provides that if any reviewed year partner with respect to whom an amount was reallocated is not also an adjustment year partner, the portion of the adjustment that would otherwise be allocated to such reviewed year partner is allocated instead to the adjustment year partner or partners who are the successor or successors to the reviewed year partner. See proposed § 301.6225-3(b)(4). Further, this rule provides that if the partnership cannot identify an adjustment year partner that is a successor to the reviewed year partner described in the previous sentence or if a successor does not exist, the portion of the adjustment that would otherwise be allocated to that reviewed year partner is allocated among the adjustment year partners according to the adjustment year partners' distributive shares.

    A commenter stated that this rule in the June 14 NPRM allocating a reallocation adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment could result in situations in which partners in a publicly traded partnership described in section 7704(b) own units that are not fungible. In response to this comment and due to administrability concerns, the Treasury Department and the IRS reconsidered this rule and have concluded that it is appropriate to provide rules in these proposed regulations relating to any situation in which a partnership is unable, after exercising reasonable diligence, to determine a successor for a partnership adjustment under section 6225 (not only reallocation adjustments). These rules require that the proposed standard in the June 14 NPRM be replaced with a new proposed regulation. Therefore, these regulations amend proposed § 301.6225-3(b)(4) by removing the final two sentences and provide a rule in proposed § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b)(3) that if a partnership cannot determine the transferee for a partnership interest under proposed § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b)(2), the successor is deemed to be those partners in the adjustment year who were not also partners in the reviewed year or otherwise identifiable as successors to reviewed year partners, in proportion to their respective interests in the partnership.

    Comments are requested as to whether these new proposed rules would similarly result in issues with respect to the fungibility of these partnership interests and, if so, specific recommendations for the final regulations to address fungibility concerns consistent with the centralized partnership audit regime, the rules of subchapter K, and the general framework of these proposed regulations. Specifically, commenters are requested to consider how the successor rules should operate when, due to the redemption of all reviewed year partners, there are no identifiable successors to reviewed year partners in the adjustment year.

    Treasury and the IRS considered other alternatives to the successor rules in these proposed regulations, including allocating notional items only to adjustment year partners that were reviewed year partners, either solely in the amount for which they would have been allocated the notional item, or allocating to them (and no other partners) the full amount of the notional items. These proposed rules contain successor rules because that approach preserves the economics of the partners that were partners in both the reviewed and the adjustment year, and also facilitates any necessary private contracts between buyers and sellers of partnership interests. Comments are requested as to whether an approach other than successor rules are better suited to preserving the single-layer of tax in subchapter K while avoiding potential for abuse or other inappropriate tax results.

    Comments are also requested as to how these successor rules should apply in the case of partnership mergers and divisions.

    Finally, comments are requested on issues similar to those noted in the June 14 NPRM in section (5)(D)(ii) of the preamble, namely whether the allocation of adjustments to a successor of a reviewed year partner that was a tax-exempt partner may raise issues concerning private benefit to a person other than a tax-exempt partner, including issues that might affect the tax-exempt partner's status under section 501(c); excise taxes under chapter 42 of subtitle D of the Code or under sections 4975, 4976, or 4980; or requirements under title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93-406 (88 Stat. 829 (1974)) as amended (ERISA), such as the fiduciary responsibility rules under part 4 thereof. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments from the public on whether these potential issues may be adequately addressed in partnership agreements or whether guidance is needed to address these potential issues. Any comments related to title I of ERISA will be shared with the Department of Labor.

    v. Adjusting Specified Tax Attributes in Certain Circumstances

    For certain types of partnership adjustments, notional items are not created. Specifically, notional items are not created for a partnership adjustment that does not derive from items that would have been allocated in the reviewed year under section 704(b), such as a partnership adjustment based upon a partner's failure to report gain under section 731, a partnership adjustment that is a change of an item of deduction to a section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure, or a partnership adjustment to an item of tax-exempt income. See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(4). Nevertheless, in these situations specified tax attributes are adjusted for the partnership and its reviewed year partners (or their successors) in a manner that is consistent with how the partnership adjustment would have been taken into account under the partnership agreement in effect for the reviewed year taking into account all facts and circumstances. See proposed § 301.6225-4(e), Example 5.

    vi. Special Rules for Outside Basis in Certain Cases

    As noted in section (2)(B)(i) of this preamble, partners normally adjust their outside bases for notional items that are allocated to them. However, in certain cases, the proposed rules do not provide for adjustments to outside basis. Specifically, when a tax-exempt partner transfers its interest to a partner that is not tax-exempt (taxable partner) between the reviewed year and the adjustment year and the partnership requests a modification because of the reviewed year partner's status as a tax-exempt entity, the successor taxable partner is disallowed a basis adjustment. See proposed § 301.6225-4(b)(6)(iii)(B). Without this rule, a taxable successor partner would have a basis increase when no imputed underpayment was paid with respect to the partner's share of the partnership adjustment. Comments are requested as to whether this rule should be extended to rate modifications described in proposed § 301.6225-2(d)(4) as well. A basis adjustment is also disallowed when a reviewed year partner transfers its interest to a related party in a transaction in which not all gain or loss is recognized during an administrative proceeding under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Code (subchapter C of chapter 63) and a principal purpose of the transfer was to shift the economic burden of the imputed underpayment among related parties. Comments are requested regarding whether basis adjustments should be disallowed in any other circumstances.

    vii. Accounting and Allocation of Partnership Section 705(a)(2)(B) Expenditures

    Proposed § 301.6225-4(c) describes how the partnership's expenditure arising from an imputed underpayment and any other amount under subchapter C of chapter 63 is taken into account by the partnership and its partners. No deduction is allowed under subtitle A of the Code for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 and the amount is treated as an expenditure described in section 705(a)(2)(B). See proposed § 301.6241-4(a).

    For an allocation to have economic effect, it must be consistent with the underlying economic arrangement of the partners. This means that, in the event that there is an economic benefit or burden that corresponds to the allocation, the partner to whom the allocation is made must receive such economic benefit or bear such economic burden. See § 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii). Generally, an allocation of income, gain, loss, or deduction (or item thereof) to a partner will have economic effect if, and only if, throughout the full term of the partnership, the partnership agreement provides: (1) For the determination and maintenance of the partners' capital accounts in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv); (2) for liquidating distributions to the partners to be made in accordance with the positive capital account balances of the partners; and (3) for each partner to be unconditionally obligated to restore the deficit balance in the partner's capital account following the liquidation of the partner's partnership interest. In lieu of satisfying the third criterion, the partnership may satisfy the qualified income offset rules set forth in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d).

    Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(i) provides specific rules for determining whether an allocation of a section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure has substantial economic effect. Specifically, it requires that a partner's capital account be decreased by allocations made to such partner of expenditures described in section 705(a)(2)(B). See also § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(b). Further, under section 705(a)(2)(B), the adjusted basis of a partner's interest in a partnership is decreased (but not below zero) by expenditures of the partnership that are not deductible in computing its taxable income and not properly chargeable to capital account.

    Several commenters addressed how the partnership's payment of an imputed underpayment should be allocated among its partners and how the payment should be given effect. With respect to the payment's allocation, commenters recommended that the expenditure be allocated among the partners in accordance with their partnership agreement, subject to the rules of section 704(b) (including the regulatory requirements for substantial economic effect). The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the commenters that the expenditure should be allocated under section 704. These proposed regulations contain special rules for allocating the expenditure under section 704(b).

    With respect to book capital account adjustments for the imputed underpayment, commenters recommended that partners' capital accounts be adjusted to reflect the partnership's payment of the imputed underpayment. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with this comment but conclude that because the expenditure is treated as an expenditure under section 705(a)(2)(B) pursuant to the June 14 NPRM (proposed § 301.6241-4(a)), existing rules provide this result.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded, however, that the existing rules that determine whether the economic effect of an allocation is substantial should be modified to take into account the unique nature of these expenditures. When a partnership pays an imputed underpayment under section 6225, it has the effect of converting what would have been a non-deductible partner-level expenditure into a non-deductible partnership-level expenditure. The proposed regulations provide that an allocation of the nondeductible expenditure will be considered to be substantial only if the partnership allocates the expenditure in proportion to the notional item to which it relates, taking into account appropriate modifications. See proposed §§ 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(a) and (f), 301.6225-4(c) and 301.6225-4(e), Example 4. This rule aligns the economics of the income allocation (in this case, the notional income allocation) with the directly associated imputed underpayment expense in a manner consistent with the flowthrough nature of partnerships under subchapter K. Absent this substantiality rule in the regulations, partnerships could inappropriately allocate expenses to partners in the adjustment year in a manner inconsistent with the underlying economic arrangement of the partners. These new substantiality rules also apply to a payment made by a pass-through partner under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4).

    Similarly, for partnerships that do not maintain capital accounts, the allocation of the expenditure cannot be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership to the extent it shifts the economic burden of the payment of the imputed underpayment away from a partner (or its successor) that would have been allocated the corresponding notional income item. However, the regulations provide that an allocation of an expense that satisfies the new substantiality rule and in which the partner's distribution rights are reduced by the partner's share of the imputed underpayment is deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership. See proposed § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xii). These proposed regulations do not address the extent to which the partnership may later reverse this allocation with a special chargeback or similar provision. Comments are requested on this issue.

    One commenter recommended rules specifying that a partner's contribution of funds to the partnership for payment of an imputed underpayment will result in an increase in that partner's capital account. This comment is not adopted because the existing rules in subchapter K provide sufficient guidance for this circumstance. A commenter also recommended rules addressing the availability of a corporation's deduction under temporary § 1.163-9T(b)(2) for a payment of interest in respect of an underpayment of tax. This comment is not adopted because it is beyond the scope of these proposed regulations.

    The proposed regulations also provide that in order for an allocation of an expenditure for interest, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts as determined under section 6233 to be substantial, it must be allocated to the reviewed year partner in proportion to the allocation of the related imputed underpayment, the related payment made by a pass-through partner under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4), or the related notional item to which it relates (whichever is appropriate), taking into account modifications under proposed § 301.6225-2 attributable to that partner. See proposed § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f)(3). This rule has a similar purpose as the rule in proposed § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f)(2) in that it aligns the economics of these expenses with the partnership items to which they relate. Under this rule, an expense for interest imposed under the Code will generally be allocated in proportion to the imputed underpayment from which it derives. Also, an expense arising from a substantial understatement of tax under section 6662(d) for an imputed underpayment will generally be allocated in proportion to the notional income item to which it relates.

    In situations in which the reviewed year partner is not an adjustment year partner, the successor rules in proposed § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b) apply to the allocation of these expenditures. Under those rules, a partner admitted after the reviewed year will not ordinarily be allocated any section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure in the adjustment year.

    C. Partnership Adjustments That Do Not Result in an Imputed Underpayment

    The June 14 NPRM provides that the rules under subchapter K apply in the case of a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment. See proposed § 301.6225-3(c). Further, proposed § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xiii) of these regulations provides that an allocation of an item arising from a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment (as defined in proposed § 301.6225-1(c)(2)) does not have substantial economic effect but will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if it is allocated in the manner in which the item would have been allocated in the reviewed year under the regulations under section 704, taking into account the successor rules described in section (2)(B)(iv) of this preamble.

    3. Provisions Relating to Section 6226 A. In General

    Section 6226(b) describes how partnership adjustments are taken into account by the reviewed year partners if a partnership makes an election under section 6226(a). Under section 6226(b)(1), each partner's tax imposed by chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code (chapter 1 tax) is increased by the aggregate of the adjustment amounts as determined under section 6226(b)(2). This increase in chapter 1 tax is reported on the return for the partner's taxable year that includes the date the statement described under section 6226(a) is furnished to the partner by the partnership (reporting year). The aggregate of the adjustment amounts is the aggregate of the correction amounts. See proposed § 301.6226-3(b).

    The adjustment amounts determined under section 6226(b)(2) fall into two categories. Under section 6226(b)(2)(A), in the case of the taxable year of the partner that includes the end of the partnership's reviewed year (first affected year), the adjustment amount is the amount by which the partner's chapter 1 tax would increase for the partner's first affected year if the partner's share of the adjustments were taken into account in that year. Under section 6226(b)(2)(B), in the case of any taxable year after the first affected year, and before the reporting year (that is, the intervening years), the adjustment amount is the amount by which the partner's chapter 1 tax would increase by reason of the adjustment to tax attributes determined under section 6226(b)(3) in each of the intervening years. The adjustment amounts determined under section 6226(b)(2)(A) and (B) are added together to determine the aggregate of the adjustment amounts for purposes of determining additional reporting year tax, which is the increase to the partner's chapter 1 tax in accordance with section 6226(b)(1).

    Section 6226(b)(3) provides two rules regarding adjustments to tax attributes that would have been affected if the partner's share of adjustments were taken into account in the first affected year. First, under section 6226(b)(3)(A), in the case of an intervening year, any tax attribute must be appropriately adjusted for purposes of determining the adjustment amount for that intervening year in accordance with section 6226(b)(2)(B). Second, under section 6226(b)(3)(B), in the case of any subsequent taxable year (that is, a year, including the reporting year, that is subsequent to the intervening years referenced in 6226(b)(3)(A)), any tax attribute must be appropriately adjusted.

    Under the June 14 NPRM, a reviewed year partner's share of the adjustments that must be taken into account by the reviewed year partner must be reported to the reviewed year partner in the same manner as originally reported on the return filed by the partnership for the reviewed year. See proposed § 301.6226-2(f). If the adjusted item was not reflected in the partnership's reviewed year return, the adjustment must be reported in accordance with the rules that apply with respect to partnership allocations, including under the partnership agreement. However, under proposed § 301.6226-2(f)(1), if the adjustments, as finally determined, are allocated to a specific partner or in a specific manner, the partner's share of the adjustment must follow how the adjustment is allocated in that final determination.

    Section 301.6226-4(b) of these proposed regulations provides that the reviewed year partners or affected partners (as described in § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i)) must take into account items of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit with respect to their share of the partnership adjustments as contained on the statements described in proposed § 301.6226-2 (pushed-out items) in the reporting year (as defined in proposed § 301.6226-3(a)). Similarly, partnerships adjust tax attributes affected by reason of a pushed-out item in the reviewed year. In the case of a reviewed year partner that disposed of its partnership interest prior to the reporting year, that partner may take into account any outside basis adjustment under these rules in an amended return to the extent otherwise allowable under the Code.

    Unlike the proposed rules under section 6225 and subchapter K described in section 2 of this preamble, under section 6226, all tax attributes (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(10)) are adjusted for pushed out items of income, gain, deduction, loss or credit.

    B. Section 704(b)

    Section (2)(B)(iii) of this preamble discusses the general mechanics of section 704(b). In accordance with the principles set forth in section 704(b), an allocation of a pushed-out item does not have substantial economic effect within the meaning of section 704(b)(2). However, the allocation of such an item will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if it is allocated in the adjustment year in the manner in which the item would have been allocated under the rules of section 704(b), including § 1.704-1(b)(1)(i) (or otherwise taken into account under subtitle A) in the reviewed year (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(8)), followed by any subsequent taxable years, concluding with the adjustment year (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(1)). See proposed § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xiv).

    C. Timing

    Under the June 14 NPRM, a reviewed year partner that is furnished a statement under proposed § 301.6226-2 is required to pay any additional chapter 1 tax (additional reporting year tax) for the partner's taxable year which includes the date the statement was furnished to the partner in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-2 (the reporting year) that results from taking into account the adjustments reflected in the statement. See proposed § 301.6226-3. The additional reporting year tax is the aggregate of the adjustment amounts, as determined in proposed § 301.6226-3(b) and described in (3)(A) of this preamble.

    A commenter recommended that adjustments to capital accounts and basis should be made to the reviewed year partners in the reviewed year to prevent distortions. This comment is not adopted because, in this context, section 6226 clearly applies to the adjustment year. These proposed regulations provide that adjustments to partnership-level tax attributes are calculated with respect to each year beginning with the reviewed year, followed by subsequent taxable years, concluding with the adjustment year. See proposed § 301.6226-4(b).

    D. Effect of a Payment by Pass-Through Partner

    These proposed regulations provide that to the extent a pass-through partner (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(5)) makes a payment in lieu of issuing statements to its owners described in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4), that payment will be treated similarly to the payment of an amount under subchapter C of chapter 63 for purposes of any adjustments to bases and capital accounts, and accordingly, the rules contained in proposed § 301.6225-4 will apply to determine any appropriate adjustments to bases and capital accounts. See proposed § 301.6226-3(e). To the extent that the pass-through partner continues to push out the partnership adjustments to its partners in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3), the partners receiving those adjustments will adjust their bases and capital accounts in accordance with the guidance provided in proposed § 301.6226-4.

    Comments are requested as to how S corporations, trusts, and estates that are pass-through partners that pay an amount under proposed § 301.6226-3(e), and their shareholders and beneficiaries, respectively, should take these payments into account and adjust tax attributes.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Because the proposed regulations would not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.

    Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

    IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, then notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 301

    Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAX Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.704-1 is amended by: 1. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(viii). 2. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a). 3. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(f), (b)(2)(iv)(i)(4), and (b)(4)(xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 1.704-1 Partner's distributive share.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (viii) Items relating to a final determination under the centralized partnership audit regime—(a) In general. Certain items of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit may result from a final determination under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code (subchapter C of chapter 63) (relating to the centralized partnership audit regime). Special rules under section 704(b) and § 1.704-1(b) apply to these items that take into account that the item relates to the reviewed year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(8) of this chapter) but occurs in the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1) of this chapter). See paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(a) and (f), (b)(2)(iv)(i)(4), and (b)(4)(xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv) of this section.

    (b) Successors—(1) In general. In the case of a transfer or liquidation of a partnership interest subsequent to a reviewed year, a successor has the meaning provided in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section. In the case of a subsequent transfer by a successor of a partnership interest, the principles of paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section will also apply to the new successor.

    (2) Identifiable transferee partner. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b)(3) of this section, in the case of a transfer of all or part of a partnership interest during or subsequent to the reviewed year, a successor is the partner to which the reviewed year transferor partner's capital account carried over (or would carry over if the partnership maintained capital accounts) under paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(l) of this section (an identifiable transferee partner).

    (3) Unidentifiable transferee partner. If, after exercising reasonable diligence, the partnership cannot determine an identifiable transferee partner under paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b)(2) of this section, each partner in the adjustment year that is not an identifiable transferee partner and was not a partner in the reviewed year, (an unidentifiable transferee partner) is a successor to the extent of the proportion of its interest in the partnership to the total interests of unidentifiable transferee partners in the partnership (considering all facts and circumstances).

    (4) Liquidation of partnership interest. In the case of a liquidation of a partner's entire interest in the partnership during or subsequent to the reviewed year, the successors to the liquidated partner are certain adjustment year partners (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(2) of this chapter) as provided in this paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b)(4). The determination of the extent to which the adjustment year partners are treated as successors under this section must be made in a manner that reflects the extent to which the adjustment year partners' interests in the partnership increased as a result of the liquidating distribution (considering all facts and circumstances).

    (2) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (a) * * * Notwithstanding any other sentence of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(a), an allocation of any of the following will be substantial only if the allocation is described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(f) of this section: An expenditure for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 (relating to the centralized partnership audit regime), adjustments reflected on a statement furnished to a pass-through partner (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(5) of this chapter) under § 301.6226-3(e)(4) of this chapter, or interest, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts described in section 6233.

    (f) Certain expenditures under the centralized partnership audit regime—(1) In general. The economic effect of an allocation of an expenditure for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 (as described in § 301.6241-4(a) of this chapter) is substantial only if the expenditure is allocated in the manner described in this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(f). For partnerships with allocations that do not satisfy paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, see paragraph (b)(4)(xi) of this section.

    (2) Expenditures for imputed underpayments or similar amounts. Except as otherwise provided, an expenditure for an imputed underpayment under § 301.6225-1 of this chapter (or for an amount computed in the same manner as an imputed underpayment under § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(iii) of this chapter) is allocated to the reviewed year partner (or its successor, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section) in proportion to the allocation of the notional item (as described in § 301.6225-4(b) of this chapter) to which the expenditure relates, taking into account modifications under § 301.6225-2 of this chapter attributable to that partner.

    (3) Interest, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts described in section 6233. An expenditure for interest, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts as determined under section 6233 (or penalties and interest described in § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(iv) of this chapter) is allocated to the reviewed year partner (or its successor, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section) in proportion to the allocation of the portion of the imputed underpayment with respect to which the penalty applies (or amount computed in the same manner as an imputed underpayment under § 301.6226-3(e)(4) of this chapter) or related notional item to which it relates (whichever is appropriate), taking into account modifications under § 301.6225-2 of this chapter attributable to that partner.

    (4) Imputed underpayments unrelated to notional items. In the case of an imputed underpayment that results from a partnership adjustment for which no notional items are created under § 301.6225-4(b)(2) of this chapter, the expenditure must be allocated to the reviewed year partner (or its successor, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section) that would have borne the economic benefit or burden of the partnership adjustment if the partnership and its partners had originally reported in a manner consistent with the partnership adjustment that resulted in the imputed underpayment with respect to the reviewed year.

    (iv) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (4) Certain expenditures under the centralized partnership audit regime. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(i)(1) of this section, the economic effect of an allocation of an expenditure for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 (as described in § 301.6241-4(a) of this chapter) is substantial only if the expenditure is allocated in the manner described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(f) of this section. For partnerships with allocations that do not satisfy paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, see paragraph (b)(4)(xii) of this section.

    (4) * * *

    (xi) Notional items under the centralized partnership audit regime. An allocation of a notional item (as described in § 301.6225-4(b) of this chapter) does not have substantial economic effect within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2) of this section. However, the allocation of a notional item of income or gain described in § 301.6225-4(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, or expense or loss described in § 301.6225-4(b)(1)(iii) of this chapter, will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if the notional item is allocated in the manner in which the corresponding actual item would have been allocated in the reviewed year under the rules of this section, treating successors (as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section) as reviewed year partners. Additionally, the allocation of a notional item of expense or loss described in § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(iv) of this chapter, or a notional item of income or gain described in § 301.6225-4(b)(3)(v) of this chapter, will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if the notional item is allocated to the reviewed year partners (or their successors as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section) in the manner in which the excess item was allocated in the reviewed year.

    (xii) Certain section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditures under the centralized partnership audit regime. An allocation of an expenditure for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 (relating to the centralized partnership audit regime and as described in § 301.6241-4(a) of this chapter) will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership, as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, only if the expenditure is allocated in the manner described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(f) of this section and if the partners' distribution rights are reduced by the partners' shares of the imputed underpayment.

    (xiii) Partnership adjustments that do not result in an imputed underpayment under the centralized partnership audit regime. An allocation of an item arising from a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment (as defined in § 301.6225-1(c)(2) of this chapter) does not have substantial economic effect within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2) of this section. However, the allocation of such an item will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if allocated in the manner in which the item would have been allocated in the reviewed year under the rules of this section, treating successors as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(b) of this section as reviewed year partners.

    (xiv) Partnership adjustments subject to an election under section 6226. An allocation of an item arising from a partnership adjustment that results in an imputed underpayment for which an election is made under § 301.6226-1 of this chapter does not have substantial economic effect within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2) of this section. However, the allocation of such an item will be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership if allocated in the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1) of this chapter) in the manner in which the item would have been allocated under the rules of this section (or otherwise taken into account under subtitle A of the Code) in the reviewed year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(8) of this chapter), followed by any subsequent taxable years, concluding with the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1) of this chapter).

    (xv) Substantial economic effect under sections 168(h) and 514(c)(9)(E)(i)(ll). An allocation described in paragraphs (b)(4)(xi) through (xiv) of this section will be deemed to have substantial economic effect for purposes of sections 168(h) and 514(c)(9)(E)(i)(ll) if the allocation is deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership under the applicable rules set forth in paragraphs (b)(4)(xi) through (xiv) of this section.

    Par. 3. Section 1.705-1 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:
    § 1.705-1 Determination of basis of partner's interest.

    (a) * * *

    (10) For rules relating to determining the adjusted basis of a partner's interest in a partnership following a final determination under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the centralized partnership audit regime), see §§ 301.6225-4 and 301.6226-4 of this chapter.

    Par. 4. Section 1.706-4 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e)(2)(viii) through (xi) as paragraphs (e)(2)(ix) through (xii), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (e)(2)(viii) to read as follows:
    § 1.706-4 Determination of distributive share when a partner's interest varies.

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (viii) Any item arising from a final determination under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the centralized partnership audit regime) with respect to a partnership adjustment resulting in an imputed underpayment for which no election is made under § 301.6226-1 of this chapter.

    PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Par. 5. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par 6. Section 301.6225-3 as proposed to be amended at 82 FR 27334 (June 14, 2017) is further amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 301.6225-3 Treatment of partnership adjustments that do not result in an imputed underpayment.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Reallocation adjustments. A partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment pursuant to §  301.6225-1(c)(2)(i) is taken into account by the partnership in the adjustment year as a separately stated item or a non-separately stated item, as required by section 702. The portion of an adjustment allocated under this paragraph (b)(4) is allocated to adjustment year partners (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(2)) who are also reviewed year partners (as defined in §  301.6241-1(a)(9)) with respect to whom the amount was reallocated.

    Par. 7. Section 301.6225-4 is added to read as follows:

    § 301.6225-4 Effect of a partnership adjustment on specified tax attributes of partnerships and their partners.

    (a) Adjustments to specified tax attributes—(1) In general. When there is a partnership adjustment (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(6)), the partnership and its adjustment year partners (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(2)) generally must adjust their specified tax attributes (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section) in accordance with the rules in this section. For a partnership adjustment that results in an imputed underpayment (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(3)), specified tax attributes are generally adjusted by making appropriate adjustments to the book value and basis of partnership property under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, creating notional items based on the partnership adjustment under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, allocating those notional items as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and determining the effect of those notional items for the partnership and its reviewed year partners (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(9)) or their successors (as defined in § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b) of this chapter) under paragraph (b)(6) of this section. Paragraph (c) of this section describes how to treat an expenditure for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code (subchapter C of chapter 63) including any imputed underpayment. Paragraph (d) of this section describes adjustments to tax attributes in the case of a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment (as described in § 301.6225-1(c)(2)).

    (2) Specified tax attributes. Specified tax attributes are the tax basis and book value of a partnership's property, amounts determined under section 704(c), adjustment year partners' bases in their partnership interests, and adjustment year partners' capital accounts determined and maintained in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2) of this chapter.

    (3) Timing. Adjustments to specified tax attributes under this section are made in the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1)). Thus, to the extent that an adjustment to a specified tax attribute under this section is reflected on a federal tax return, the partnership adjustment is generally first reflected on any return filed with respect to the adjustment year.

    (4) Effect of other sections. The determination of specified tax attributes under this section is not conclusive as to tax attributes determined under other sections of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), including the centralized partnership audit regime. For example, a partnership that files an administrative adjustment request (AAR) under section 6227 adjusts tax attributes as appropriate. Further, to the extent a partner or partnership appropriately adjusted tax attributes prior to a final determination under subchapter C of chapter 63 with respect to a partnership adjustment (for example, in the context of an amended return modification described in § 301.6225-2(d)(2) or a closing agreement described in § 301.6225-2(d)(8)), those tax attributes are not adjusted under this section. Similarly, to the extent a partner filed a return inconsistent with the treatment of items on a partnership return, a reviewed year partner (or its successor) does not adjust tax attributes to the extent the partner's prior return was consistent with the partnership adjustment. For the rules regarding consistent treatment by partners, see § 301.6222-1.

    (5) Election under section 6226—(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section, tax attributes are adjusted for a partnership adjustment that results in an imputed underpayment with respect to which an election is made under § 301.6226-1 in accordance with § 301.6226-4, and not the rules of this section.

    (ii) Pass-through partners and indirect partners. A pass-through partner (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(5)) that is a partnership and pays an amount under § 301.6226-3(e)(4) treats its share of each partnership adjustment reflected on the relevant statement as a partnership adjustment described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, treats the amount computed in the same manner as an imputed underpayment under § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(iii) as an imputed underpayment determined under § 301.6225-1 for purposes of § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(a) and (f) of this chapter, treats items arising from an adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment as an item under paragraph (d) of this section, and finally treats amounts with respect to any penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts and interest computed as an amount described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f)(3) of this chapter.

    (6) Reflection of economic arrangement. This section and the rules in § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii), (b)(2)(iii)(a) and (f), (b)(2)(iv)(i)(4), and (b)(4)(xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv) of this chapter must be interpreted in a manner that reflects the economic arrangement of the parties and the principles of subchapter K of the Code, taking into account the rules of the centralized partnership audit regime.

    (b) Adjusting specified tax attributes in the case of a partnership adjustment that results in an imputed underpayment—(1) In general. This paragraph (b) applies with respect to each partnership adjustment that was taken into account in the calculation of the imputed underpayment under § 301.6225-1(c).

    (2) Book value and basis of partnership property—Partnership-level specified tax attributes must be adjusted under this paragraph (b)(2). Specifically, the partnership must make appropriate adjustments to the book value and basis of property to take into account any partnership adjustment. No adjustments are made with respect to property that was held by the partnership in the reviewed year but is no longer held by the partnership in the adjustment year. Amounts determined under section 704(c) must also be adjusted to take into account the partnership adjustment.

    (3) Creation of notional items based on partnership adjustment—(i) In general. In order to give appropriate effect to each partnership adjustment for partner-level specified tax attributes, notional items are created with respect to each partnership adjustment, except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.

    (ii) Increase in income or gain. In the case of a partnership adjustment that is an increase to income or gain, a notional item of income or gain is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment.

    (iii) Increase in expense or loss. In the case of a partnership adjustment that is an increase to an expense or a loss, a notional item of an expense or loss is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment.

    (iv) Decrease in income or gain. In the case of a partnership adjustment that is a decrease to income or gain, a notional item of expense or loss is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment.

    (v) Decrease in expense or loss. In the case of a partnership adjustment that is a decrease to an expense or to a loss, a notional item of income or gain is created in an amount equal to the partnership adjustment.

    (vi) Credits. If a partnership adjustment reflects a net increase or net decrease in credits as determined under § 301.6225-1(d), the partnership may have one or more notional items of income, gain, loss, or deduction that reflects the change in the item that gives rise to the credit, and those items are treated as items in paragraph (b)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this section. For example, if a partnership adjustment is to a credit, a notional item of deduction may be created when appropriate. See section 280C.

    (4) Situations in which notional items are not created—(i) In general. In the case of a partnership adjustment described in this paragraph (b)(4), or when the creation of a notional item would duplicate a specified tax attribute or an actual item already taken into account, notional items are not created. Nevertheless, in these situations specified tax attributes are adjusted for the partnership and its reviewed year partners or their successors (as defined in § 1.704-1(b)(i)(viii)(b) of this chapter) in a manner that is consistent with how the partnership adjustment would have been taken into account under the partnership agreement in effect for the reviewed year taking into account all facts and circumstances. See § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f)(4) of this chapter for rules for allocating the expenditure for an imputed underpayment in these circumstances.

    (ii) Adjustments for non-section 704(b) items. Notional items are not created for a partnership adjustment that does not derive from items that would have been allocated in the reviewed year under section 704(b). See paragraph (e) of this section, Example 5.

    (iii) Section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditures. Notional items are not created for a partnership adjustment that is a change of an item of deduction to a section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure.

    (iv) Tax-exempt income. Notional items are not created for a partnership adjustment to an item of income of a partnership exempt from tax under subtitle A of the Code.

    (5) Allocation of the notional items. Notional items are allocated to the reviewed year partners or their successors under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xi) of this chapter.

    (6) Effect of notional items—(i) In general. The partnership creates notional items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit in order to make appropriate adjustments to specified tax attributes. See paragraph (e) of this section, Example 1.

    (ii) Partner capital accounts. For purposes of capital accounts determined and maintained in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2) of this chapter, a notional item of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit is treated as an item of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit (including for purposes of determining book value). Similar adjustments may be appropriate for partnerships that do not determine and maintain capital accounts in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2) of this chapter.

    (iii) Partner's basis in its interest—(A) In general. Except as otherwise provided, the basis of a partner's interest in a partnership is adjusted (but not below zero) to reflect any notional item allocated to the partner by treating the notional item as an item described in section 705(a).

    (B) Special basis rules. The basis of a partner's interest in a partnership is not adjusted for any notional items allocated to the partner—

    (1) When a partner that is not a tax-exempt entity (as defined in § 301.6225-2(d)(3)(iii)) is a successor under § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b) of this chapter to a reviewed year tax-exempt partner (as defined in § 301.6225-2(d)(3)(iii)), to the extent that the IRS approved a modification under § 301.6225-2 because the tax-exempt partner was not subject to tax; or

    (2) When the notional item would be allocated to a successor that is related (within the meaning of sections 267(b) or 707(b)) to the reviewed year partner, the successor acquired its interest from the reviewed year partner in a transaction (or series of transactions) in which not all gain or loss is recognized during an administrative adjustment proceeding with respect to the partnership's reviewed year under subchapter C of chapter 63, and a principal purpose of the interest transfer (or transfers) was to shift the economic burden of the imputed underpayment among the related parties.

    (c) Determining a partner's share of an expenditure for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63. Payment by a partnership of any amount required to be paid under subchapter C of chapter 63 as described in § 301.6241-4(a) is treated as an expenditure described in section 705(a)(2)(B). Rules for determining whether the economic effect of an allocation of these expenses is substantial are provided in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f) of this chapter and rules for determining whether an allocation of these expenses is deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership are provided in § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xii) of this chapter.

    (d) Adjusting tax attributes for a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment. The rules under subchapter K apply in the case of a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment. See § 301.6225-3(c). Accordingly, tax attributes (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(10)) are adjusted under those rules. An item arising from a partnership adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment (as defined in § 301.6225-1(c)(2)) is allocated under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xiii) of this chapter.

    (e) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this section. For purposes of these examples, unless otherwise stated, Partnership is subject to the provisions of subchapter C of chapter 63, Partnership and its partners are calendar year taxpayers, all partners are U.S. persons, and the highest rate of income tax in effect for all taxpayers is 40 percent for all relevant periods.

    Example 1.

    (i) In 2019, A, B, and C are individuals that form Partnership. A contributes Whiteacre, which is unimproved land with an adjusted basis of $400 and a fair market value of $1000, and B and C each contribute $1000 in cash. The partnership agreement provides that all income, gain, loss, and deduction will be allocated in equal 1/3 shares among the partners. The partnership agreement also provides that the partners' capital accounts will be determined and maintained in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv) of this chapter, distributions in liquidation of the partnership (or any partner's interest) will be made in accordance with the partners' positive capital account balances, and any partner with a deficit balance in his capital account following the liquidation of his interest must restore that deficit to the partnership (as provided in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(b)(2) and (3) of this chapter).

    (ii) Upon formation, Partnership has the following assets and capital accounts:

    Partnership basis Book Value Outside basis Book Value Cash $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 A $400 $1,000 $1,000 Whiteacre 400 1,000 1,000 B 1,000 1,000 1,000 C 1,000 1,000 1,000 Totals 2,400 3,000 3,000 2,400 3,000 3,000

    (iii) In 2019, Partnership makes a $120 payment for Asset that it treats as a deductible expense on its partnership return.

    Partnership basis Book Value Outside basis Book Value Cash $1,880 $1,880 $1,880 A $360 $960 $1,000 Whiteacre 400 1,000 1,000 B 960 960 1,000 Asset 0 0 120 C 960 960 1,000 Totals 2,280 2,880 3,000 2,280 2,880 3,000

    (iv) Partnership does not file an AAR for 2020. The IRS determines in 2021 (the adjustment year) that Partnership's $120 expenditure was not allowed as a deduction in 2019 (the reviewed year), but rather was the acquisition of an asset for which cost recovery deductions are unavailable. Accordingly, the IRS makes a partnership adjustment that disallows the entire $120 deduction, which results in an imputed underpayment of $48 ($120 × 40 percent). Partnership does not request modification under § 301.6225-2. Partnership pays the $48 imputed underpayment.

    (v) Partnership first determines its tax attribute adjustments resulting from the partnership adjustment by applying paragraph (b) of this section. Pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, Partnership must re-state the basis and book value of Asset to $120. Further, pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a $120 notional item of income is created. The $120 item of notional income is allocated in equal shares ($40) to A, B, and C in 2021 under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xi) of this chapter. Accordingly, in 2021 Partnership increases the capital accounts of A, B, and C by $40 each, and increases A, B, and C's outside bases by $40 each under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) and (iii) of this section, respectively.

    (vi) As described in paragraph (c) of this section, Partnership's payment of the $48 imputed underpayment is treated as an expenditure described in section 705(a)(2)(B) under § 301.6241-4. Under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xii) of this chapter, Partnership determines each partner's properly allocable share of this expenditure in 2021 by allocating the expenditure in proportion to the allocations of the notional item to which the expenditure relates. Accordingly, each of A, B, and C have a properly allocable share of $16 each, which is the same proportion (1/3 each) in which A, B, and C share the $120 item of notional income. Thus, A, B and C's capital accounts are each decreased by $16 in 2021 and A, B and C's outside bases are each decreased by $16 in 2021. The allocation of the expenditure under the partnership agreement has economic effect under § 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter and, because the allocation of the expenditure is determined in accordance with § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f) of this chapter, the economic effect of these allocations is deemed to be substantial.

    (vii) The payment is also reflected by a $48 decrease in partnership cash for book purposes under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii) of this chapter. Therefore, in 2021, A's basis in Partnership is $384 and his capital account is $984. B and C each have a basis and capital account of $984.

    Partnership basis Book Value Outside basis Book Value Cash $1,832 $1,832 $1,832 A $384 $984 $984 Whiteacre 400 1,000 1,000 B 984 984 984 Asset 120 120 120 C 984 984 984 Totals 2,352 2,952 2,952 2,352 2,952 2,952
    Example 2.

    (i) The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (e), except the IRS approves modification under § 301.6225-2(d)(3) with respect to A, which is a tax-exempt entity, and under § 301.6225-2(d)(4) with respect to C, which is a corporation subject to a tax rate of 35%. These modifications reduce Partnership's overall imputed underpayment from $48 to $30.

    (ii) As in Example 1 of this paragraph (e), Partnership determines its tax attribute adjustments resulting from the partnership adjustment by applying paragraph (b) of this section. Pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a $120 notional item of income is created. The $120 item of notional income is allocated in equal shares ($40) to A, B, and C in 2021 under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xi) of this chapter. Accordingly, in 2021 Partnership increases the capital accounts of A, B, and C by $40 each, and increases A, B, and C's outside bases by $40 each under paragraph (b)(5) (ii) and (iii) of this section, respectively.

    (iii) However, the modifications affect how Partnership must allocate the imputed underpayment expenditure among A, B, and C in 2021 (the adjustment year) pursuant to § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f) of this chapter. Specifically, Partnership allocates the $30 expenditure in 2021 in proportion to the allocation of the notional item to which it relates (which is 1/3 each as in Example 1 of this paragraph (e)), but it must also take into account modifications attributable to each partner. Accordingly, B's allocation is $16 (its share of the imputed underpayment, for which no modification occurred), and A and C have properly allocable shares of $0 and $14, respectively (their shares, taking into account modification). Thus, A's capital account is decreased by $0, B's capital account is decreased by $16, and C's capital account is decreased by $14 in 2021 and their respective outside bases are decreased by the same amounts in 2021.

    (iv) The payment is also reflected by a $30 decrease in partnership cash for book purposes. Therefore, in 2021, A's basis in Partnership is $400 and his capital account is $1000, B's basis and capital account are both $984, and C's basis and capital account are both $986.

    Partnership basis Book Value Outside basis Book Value Cash $1,850 $1,850 $1,850 A $400 $1,000 $1,000 Whiteacre 400 1,000 1,000 B 984 984 984 Asset 120 120 120 C 986 986 986 Totals 2,370 2,970 2,970 2,370 2,970 2,970 Example 3.

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (e). However, in 2020, C transfers its entire interest in Partnership to D (an individual) for cash. Under § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(l) of this chapter, C's capital account carries over to D. In 2021, the year the IRS determines that Partnership's $120 expense is not allowed as a deduction, D is C's successor under § 1.704-1(b)(1)(viii)(b)(2) of this chapter with respect to specified tax attributes and the payment of the imputed underpayment treated as an expenditure under section 705(a)(2)(B).

    Example 4.

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (e), except that the partnership agreement provides that the section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure for imputed underpayments made by the partnership are specially allocated to A (all other items continue to be allocated in equal shares). Accordingly, in 2021, the section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure is allocated entirely to A, which reduces its capital account by $120, which has economic effect under § 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter. However, the economic effect of this allocation is not substantial under § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(a) of this chapter because it is not allocated in the manner described in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f) of this chapter. The allocation will also not be deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership under § 1.704-1(b)(3)(ix) of this chapter because it is not allocated pursuant to the rules under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xii) of this chapter.

    Example 5.

    (i) In 2019, Partnership has two partners, A and B. Both A and B have a $0 basis in their interests in Partnership. Further, Partnership has a $200 liability as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4) of this chapter. The liability is treated as a nonrecourse liability as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(2) of this chapter so that A and B both are treated as having a $100 share of the liability under § 1.752-3 of this chapter. In 2021 (the adjustment year), the IRS determines that the liability was inappropriately classified as a nonrecourse liability, should have been classified as a recourse liability as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(1) of this chapter, and that A should have no share of the recourse liability under § 1.752-2 of this chapter. As a result of the liability misclassification, the IRS assesses an imputed underpayment of $40 ($100 × 40%) resulting from the $100 decrease in A's share of partnership liabilities under §§ 1.752-1(c) and 1.731-1(a)(1)(i) of this chapter. Partnership does not request modification under § 301.6225-2. Partnership pays the $40 imputed underpayment.

    (ii) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this of this section, notional items are not created with respect to this partnership adjustment. Instead, under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, specified tax attributes are adjusted in a manner that is consistent with how the partnership adjustment would have been taken into account under the partnership agreement in effect for the reviewed year taking into account all facts and circumstances. In this case, no specified tax attributes are adjusted.

    (iii) However, because A would have borne the economic burden of the partnership adjustment if the partnership and its partners had originally reported in a manner consistent with the partnership adjustment, the $40 imputed underpayment section 705(a)(2)(B) expenditure is allocated to A under § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)(f)(4) of this chapter.

    (f) Applicability date—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, this section applies to partnership taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

    (2) Election under § 301.9100-22T in effect. This section applies to any partnership taxable year beginning after November 2, 2015 and before January 1, 2018 for which a valid election under § 301.9100-22T is in effect.

    Par. 8. Section 301.6226-4 is added to read as follows:
    § 301.6226-4 Effect of a partnership adjustment on tax attributes of partnerships and their partners.

    (a) Adjustments to tax attributes—(1) In general. When a partnership adjustment (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(6)) is taken into account by the reviewed year partners (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(9)) or affected partners (as described in § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i)) pursuant to an election made by a partnership under § 301.6226-1, the partnership and its reviewed year partners or affected partners must adjust their tax attributes (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(10)) in accordance with the rules in this section.

    (2) Application to pass-through partners and indirect partners. To the extent a pass-through partner (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(5)) pays an amount computed in the same manner as an imputed underpayment under § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(iii) (paying partnership), the paying partnership and its affected partners (as defined in § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i)) or their successors must make adjustments to their tax attributes in accordance with the rules in § 301.6225-4.

    (3) Allocation of partnership adjustments. Partnership adjustments are allocated to the reviewed year partners or affected partners under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(xiv) of this chapter.

    (b) Adjusting tax attributes when an election under section 6226 is made. For partnership adjustments that are taken into account by the reviewed year partners or affected partners because an election is made under § 301.6226-1, each partner's share of the partnership adjustments are determined under § 301.6226-2(f). Accordingly, the reviewed year partners or affected partners must take into account items of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit with respect to their share of the partnership adjustments as reflected on the statements described in § 301.6226-2 or § 301.6226-3(e)(3) (pushed-out items) in the reporting year (as defined in § 301.6226-3(a)). Similarly, partnerships adjust tax attributes affected by reason of a pushed-out item in the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1)), but these adjustments are calculated with respect to each year beginning with the reviewed year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(8)), followed by any subsequent taxable years, concluding with the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1)).

    (c) Example. The following example illustrates the rules of this section. For purposes of this example, Partnership is subject to the provisions of subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, Partnership and its partners are calendar year taxpayers, all partners are U.S. persons, and the highest rate of income tax in effect for all taxpayers is 40% for all relevant periods.

    Example.

    (i) In 2021, J, K and L form Partnership by each contributing $500 in exchange for partnership interests that share all items of income, gain, loss and deduction in identical shares. Partnership immediately purchases Asset on January 1, 2021 for $1500, which it depreciates using the straight-line method with a 10-year recovery period beginning in 2021 ($150) so that each partner has a $50 distributive share of the depreciation, resulting in an outside basis of $450 for each partner. Accordingly, at the end of 2022, J, K and L have an outside basis and capital account of $400 each ($500 less $50 of their respective allocable shares of depreciation in 2021 and $50 in 2022).

    Partnership basis Book Value Outside basis Book Value Asset $1,200 $1,200 $1,500 J $400 $400 $500 K 400 400 500 L 400 400 500 Totals 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,200 1,200 1,500

    (ii) The IRS initiates an administrative proceeding with respect to Partnership's 2021 taxable year (reviewed year) in 2023 (adjustment year) and determines that Asset should have been depreciated with a 20-year recovery period beginning in 2021, resulting in a $75 partnership adjustment that results in an imputed underpayment. The IRS does not initiate an administrative proceeding with respect to Partnership's 2022 taxable year, and Partnership does not file an administrative adjustment request for that taxable year. Partnership makes an election under § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment. Therefore, J, K and L each are furnished a statement described in § 301.6226-2 by Partnership reflecting the $25 income adjustment for 2021. Pursuant to § 301.6226-2(e)(6), the statement furnished by Partnership to J, K, and L also reflects a $25 income adjustment to the 2022 intervening year.

    (iii) Tax attributes must be adjusted to reflect the $75 pushed-out item of income that is taken into account in equal shares ($25) by J, K, and L with respect to 2021. Specifically, J, K and L's outside bases and capital accounts must be increased $25 each with respect to the 2021 tax year. Additionally, tax attributes must be adjusted with respect to 2022, as an intervening year. Specifically, J, K and L must increase their outside bases and capital accounts by $25 each with respect to the 2022 tax year. As a result, J, K and L each have an outside basis and capital account of $425 ($400 minus $25 of depreciation for 2023 plus $25 of income realized with respect to 2021 plus $25 of income realized with respect to 2022). Asset's basis and book value must also be changed in 2023. Thus, after adjusting tax attributes to take into account the election under § 301.6225-1 and taking into account other activities of Partnership in 2023, accounts are stated as follows:

    Partnership basis Book Value Outside basis Book Value Asset $1,275 $1,275 $1,500 J $425 $425 $500 K 425 425 500 L 425 425 500 Totals 1,275 1,275 1,500 1,275 1,275 1,500

    (d) Applicability date—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, this section applies to partnership taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

    (2) Election under § 301.9100-22T in effect. This section applies to any partnership taxable year beginning after November 2, 2015 and before January 1, 2018 for which a valid election under § 301.9100-22T is in effect.

    Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-01989 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1125] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds; Saint Lawrence Seaway, Cape Vincent, New York AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish at the request of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, two separate anchorage grounds, Carleton Island Anchorage and Tibbetts Point Anchorage, near Cape Vincent, New York. The Federal Anchorage Ground designations will enable a pilot to disembark a safely anchored vessel which will help reduce pilot fatigue, increase pilot availability, and reduce costs incurred by vessels transiting the Seaway. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1125 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 Jason Radcliffe, Ninth District, Waterways Operations, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6060, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish two anchorage grounds one in the vicinity of Carleton Island, New York and the second near Tibbetts Point, New York. Each area has historically been used as an anchorage and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, at the request of its waterway users, has requested each area to be officially designated as Federal Anchorage Grounds.

    Without this designation, pilots who anchor a ship in the respective areas are unable to disembark during sustained delay periods which hinder compliance with rest requirements and complicate pilot availability and logistics for other vessels. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish two new anchorage areas to be known as Carleton Island Anchorage and Tibbetts Point Anchorage.

    The Carleton Island Anchorage would be located just northeast and adjacent to Carleton Island and Millen Bay. The boundaries of Carleton Island Anchorage are presented in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this document. The anchorage would be approximately .75 square miles. Proposed Carleton Island Anchorage is primarily intended for use by up-bound inland or ocean going bulk freight and tank ships, towing vessels and barges that need to anchor and wait for the availability of a Lake Ontario Pilot. Under this proposed rule no anchors would be allowed to be placed in the channel and no portion of the hull or rigging would be allowed to extend outside the limits of the anchorage area.

    The Tibbetts Point Anchorage would be located just west and adjacent to Tibbetts Point and Fuller Bay. The boundaries of Tibbett's Point Anchorage are presented in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this document. The anchorage would be approximately 1.5 square miles. Proposed Tibbett's Point Anchorage is primarily intended for use by down-bound inland or ocean going bulk freight and tank ships, towing vessels and barges that need to anchor and wait for the availability of a River Pilot. Under this proposed rule no anchors would be allowed to be placed in the channel and no portion of the hull or rigging would be allowed to extend outside the limits of the anchorage area.

    Whenever the maritime or commercial interests of the United States so require, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation or their designated representative may direct the movement of any vessel anchored or moored within the anchorage area. The Coast Guard has ascertained the view of the Buffalo, New York District and Division Engineer, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, about the specific provisions of this proposed rule.

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

    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, and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action based on the location and size of the proposed anchorage grounds, as well as the historical automatic identification system (AIS) data. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed anchorage grounds are located outside the navigational channel. When not occupied, vessels would be able to maneuver in, around and through the anchorage.

    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 number of small entities impacted and the extent of the impact, if any, is expected to be minimal. The anchorage area is not routinely transited by vessels heading to, or returning from, known fishing grounds. It is also not used by small entities, including small vessels, for anchoring due to the depth of water naturally present in the area.

    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 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 the establishment of a permanent anchorage near Carleton Island, New York. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where 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.

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a public meeting by contacting Lieutenant Radcliffe under the ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid in this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 110.209 to read as follows:
    § 110.209 Saint Lawrence Seaway Anchorages, NY.

    (a) Carleton Island Anchorage; Saint Lawrence River, Cape Vincent, New York.

    (1) Carleton Island Anchorage Area. The waters bounded by a line connecting the following, beginning at 44°11′57.11″ N, 076°14′04.62″ W; thence to 44°11′21.80″ N, 076°14′05.77″ W; thence to 44°11′34.07″ N, 076°15′49.57″ W; 44°11′35.35″ N, 076°16′47.50″ W; 44°11′43.49″ N, 076°16′48.00″ W; 44°11′57.11″ N, 076°14′04.62″ W and back to the beginning point. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.

    (2) Tibbett's Island Anchorage Area. The waters bounded by a line connecting the following points, beginning at 44°05′20.27″ N, 076°23′25″78° W; thence to 44°05′21.85″ N, 076°22′40.97″ W; thence to 44°04′34.08″ N, 076°23′09.98″ W; 44°04′07.72″ N; 076°23′33.76″ W; 44°04′32.78″ N, 076°24′43.80″ W; 44°05′44.37″ N, 076°23′56.29″ W; 44°05′20.27″ N, 076°23′ 25.78″ W and back to the beginning point. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.

    (b) The Regulations. (1) Anchors must not be placed in the Saint Lawrence Seaway shipping channel. No portion of the hull or rigging may extend outside the limits of the anchorage area.

    (2) No vessel may occupy any general anchorage described in paragraph (a) of this section for a period longer than 10 days unless approval is obtained from the Captain of the Port for that purpose.

    (3) The COTP, or authorized representative, may require vessels to depart from the Anchorages described above before the expiration of the authorized or maximum stay. The COTP, or authorized representative, will provide at least 12-hour notice to a vessel required to depart the anchorages.

    Dated: January 11, 2018. J.M. Nunan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02114 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2017-10] Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works: Notice of Public Hearings AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Copyright Office will be holding public hearings as part of the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) concerning possible exemptions to the DMCA's prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The public hearings will be held in April 2018 in Washington, DC and Los Angeles. Parties interested in testifying at the public hearings are invited to submit requests to testify pursuant to the instructions set forth below.

    DATES:

    The public hearings in Washington, DC are scheduled for April 10, 11, 12, and 13, 2018, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The public hearings in Los Angeles are scheduled for April 23, 24, and 25, 2018, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Requests to testify must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on February 21, 2018. Although the Office currently anticipates up to four days of hearings in Washington, DC and three days of hearings in Los Angeles, the Office may adjust this schedule depending upon the number and nature of requests to testify. Once the schedule of hearing witnesses is finalized, the Office will notify all participants and post the times and dates of the hearings at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Washington, DC hearings will be held in the Mumford Room of the James Madison Building of the Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20540. The Los Angeles hearings will be held in Room 1314 of the UCLA School of Law, 385 Charles E. Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Requests to testify should be submitted through the request form available at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/hearing-request.html. Any person who is unable to send a request via the website should contact the Office using the contact information below to make an alternative arrangement for submission of a request to testify. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below includes additional instructions on submitting requests to testify.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarang Vijay Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected], Regan A. Smith, Deputy General Counsel, by email at [email protected], Anna Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by email at [email protected], or Jason E. Sloan, Attorney-Advisor, by email at [email protected] Each can be contacted by telephone by calling (202) 707-8350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 30, 2017, the Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register to initiate the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1), which provides that the Librarian of Congress, upon recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may exempt certain classes of copyrighted works from the prohibition against circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a copyrighted work. 82 FR 29804 (June 30, 2017). On October 26, 2017, the Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth proposed exemptions for twelve classes of works and requesting responsive comments. 82 FR 49550 (Oct. 26, 2017). The responsive comments received thus far have been posted on the Office's website. See https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.

    At this time, the Office is announcing public hearings to be held in Washington, DC and Los Angeles to further consider the proposed exemptions. The Office plans to convene panels of witnesses for the proposals to be considered, and may combine certain panels if the witnesses and/or key issues substantially overlap. The Office will schedule panels for particular exemptions in either Washington, DC or Los Angeles unless compelling circumstances require that a proposed class be considered in both cities. Limiting the discussion of each proposed class to one city or another will better ensure that witnesses can respond to the points made by others and avoid duplicative discussion. All of the hearings will be live streamed online. If no request to testify is received for a proposed exemption, the Office will consider the class based on the written submissions and any ex-parte communications with interested parties (discussed below).

    A. Submitting Requests To Testify

    A request to testify should be submitted to the Copyright Office using the form on the Office's website indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. Anyone wishing to testify with respect to more than one proposed class must submit a separate form for each request. If multiple people from the same organization wish to testify on different panels, each should submit a separate request for each panel. If multiple people from the same organization wish to testify on the same panel, each should submit a request for that panel, and explain the need for multiple witnesses in the comment field of the request form. If a party is considering whether to testify at a hearing, the party should submit a hearing request form even if no opposition has been filed. The Copyright Office will contact requesters should it determine that a hearing is unnecessary.

    Depending upon the number and nature of the requests to testify, and in light of the limited time and space available for the public hearings, the Office may not be able to accommodate all requests to testify. The Office will give preference to those who have submitted substantive evidentiary submissions in support of or in opposition to a proposal. To the extent feasible, the Office encourages parties with similar interests to select a common representative to testify on their behalf.

    All requests to testify must clearly identify:

    • The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness.

    • The organization or organizations represented, if any.

    • Contact information (address, telephone, and email).

    • The proposed class about which the person wishes to testify.

    • A two- to three-sentence explanation of the testimony the witness expects to present.

    • If the party is requesting the ability to demonstrate a use or a technology at the hearing, a description of the demonstration, including whether it will be prepared in advance or presented live, the approximate time required for such demonstration, and any presentation equipment that the person desires to use and/or bring to the hearing.

    • The city in which the person prefers to testify (Washington, DC or Los Angeles).

    The Office will try to take this preference into account in scheduling the hearings, but cannot guarantee that the relevant panel will be convened in the preferred city. Participants who are unable to testify in a particular city or on a particular date should so indicate in the comment field of the request form.

    To facilitate the process of scheduling panels, it is essential that all of the required information listed above be included in a request to testify.

    Following receipt of the requests to testify, the Office will prepare agendas for the hearings listing the panels and witnesses, which will be circulated to hearing participants and posted at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/. As stated above, although the Office currently anticipates up to four days of hearings in Washington, DC and three days of hearings in Los Angeles, the Office may adjust this schedule depending upon the number and nature of requests to testify.

    B. Format of Public Hearings

    There will be time limits for each panel, which will be established after receiving all requests to testify. Generally, the Copyright Office plans to allot approximately one to two hours for each proposed class, although it may allot additional time for more complex classes.

    Witnesses should expect the Office to have carefully studied all written comments, and the Office will expect witnesses to have done the same with respect to the classes for which they will be presenting. The hearings will focus on legal or factual issues that are unclear or underdeveloped in the written record, as identified by the Office, as well as demonstrative evidence.

    The Office stresses that factual information is critical to the rulemaking process, and witnesses should be prepared to discuss, among other things, where the copies of the works sought to be accessed are stored, how the works would be accessed, and what would be done with the works after being accessed. The Office also encourages witnesses to provide real-world examples to support their arguments. In some cases, the best way to do this may be to provide a demonstration of a claimed noninfringing use or the technologies pertinent to a proposal. As noted above, a person wishing to provide a demonstration should include a request to do so with his or her request to testify, using the appropriate space on the form described above. To ensure proper documentation of the hearings, the Office will require that a copy of any audio, visual, or audiovisual materials that have been prepared in advance (e.g., slideshows and videos) be provided to the Office at the hearing. Live demonstrations may be recorded by a videographer provided by the Office. The Office may contact witnesses individually ahead of time to ensure that demonstrations can be preserved for the record in an appropriate form.

    In addition to videography equipment, the Office expects to have a PC, projector, and screen in the hearing room to accommodate demonstrations. Beyond this equipment, witnesses are responsible for supplying and operating any other equipment needed for their demonstrations. Persons planning to bring additional electronic or audiovisual equipment must notify the Office at least five business days in advance of their scheduled hearing date by emailing John Riley, Attorney-Advisor, at [email protected]

    All hearings will be open to the public, but seating will be limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Witnesses and persons accompanying witnesses will be given priority in seating. As noted above, all of the hearings will be live streamed online.

    C. Ex-Parte Communication

    Typically, the Office's communications with participants about an ongoing rulemaking do not include discussions about the substance of the proceeding apart from written comments and public hearings. As with prior section 1201 rulemakings, the written record may also include post-hearing questions issued by the Office to individual parties involved with a particular class, and the Office will continue to post any questions and responses on the Office's website as part of the public record. For this rulemaking, the Office has determined that informal communication with interested parties might also be beneficial, such as to discuss nuances of proposed regulatory language. Any such communication may occur after the public hearings, but before the Office has issued a recommendation to the Librarian of Congress regarding the exemptions. Parties wishing to participate in informal discussions with the Office should submit a written request to one or more of the persons listed in the contact information above.

    The primary means to communicate views in the course of the rulemaking will, however, continue to be through the submission of written comments and testimony at the public hearings. In other words, informal communication will supplement, not substitute for, the written record and testimony at the public hearings. Should a party meet with the Office regarding this rulemaking, the participating party will be responsible for submitting a list of attendees and written summary of any oral communication to the Office, which will be made publicly available on the Office's website or regulations.gov. In sum, while the Office is establishing the option of informal meetings in this rulemaking, it will require that all such communications be reflected in the record to ensure the greatest possible transparency.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02086 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0315; FRL-9973-46-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the following four actions regarding the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP): Approve the portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP; and approve the visibility prong of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0315 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).

    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was “better-than-BART,” a number of states in the CAIR region, including Georgia, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.2 Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.

    1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia), including Georgia, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide “budgets” for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was “fatally flawed” and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze plan on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), and in the same action, promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies in Georgia's regional haze plan. EPA finalized a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38501), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.

    In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.3 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.4

    3 Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).

    4 EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). EPA has approved SIPs from Alabama, Minnesota, and Wisconsin relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.

    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative to the application of source-specific BART. EPA has determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic scope resulting from the actions EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand do not affect the continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a BART alternative, because the changes in geographic scope would not have adversely affected the results of the air quality modeling analysis upon which the EPA based the 2012 determination. EPA's September 29, 2017, determination was based, in part, on EPA's final action approving a SIP revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016)) adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets and on SIP revisions submitted by Georgia and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets.5 Since that time, EPA has approved the SIP revisions from Georgia and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) and 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017), respectively.

    5 EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South Carolina SIP revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866), and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively.

    A portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP submittal seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval of its regional haze plan submitted on February 11, 2010, and supplemented on November 19, 2010, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.6 Specifically, Georgia requests that EPA amend the State's regional haze plan by replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy SO2 and NOX BART requirements and first implementation period SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR,7 and to support the RPGs for the Class I areas in Georgia for the first implementation period. EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.

    6 On October 13, 2017, (82 FR 47930), EPA approved the portions of the July 26, 2017, SIP submission incorporating into Georgia's SIP the State's regulations requiring Georgia EGUs to participate in CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs and thus replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. In the October 13, 2017, action, EPA did not take any action regarding Georgia's request in this July 26, 2017, SIP submission to revise the State's regional haze plan nor regarding the prong 4 element of the 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    7 In its regional haze plan, Georgia concluded and EPA found acceptable the State's determination that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for SO2 for affected Georgia EGUs for the first implementation period, with the exception of five EGUs at three facilities owned by Georgia Power. See 77 FR 11464 (February 27, 2012).

    B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.8

    8 For additional information regarding EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions, see, e.g., 81 FR 57544 (August 23, 2016) (proposal to approve portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

    Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional approvals of the prong 4 portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to full approvals, as discussed in section III of this notice.9 All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections.

    9 On September 26, 2016, EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 81 FR 65899.

    1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on October 22, 2013, as supplemented on July 25, 2014. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.10

    10 The other portions of Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submission submitted on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 25355 (April 28, 2016).

    2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 25, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of this submission.11

    11 The other portions of Georgia's March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 63106 (September 14, 2016).

    3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 14, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.12

    12 Most of the other portions of Georgia's December 14, 2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 83156 (November 21, 2016). EPA is evaluating the remaining portions of Georgia's December 14, 2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission and will consider action on those portions in a separate action.

    4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on May 14, 2012. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.13

    13 The other portions of Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP submission were addressed in a separate action. See 80 FR 61109 (October 9, 2015).

    II. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).14 The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.

    14 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

    III. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed prong 4 and regional haze?

    Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; October 22, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014; and December 14, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission rely on the State having a fully approved regional haze plan to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved Georgia's regional haze plan, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR.

    On May 26, 2016, Georgia submitted a commitment letter to EPA to submit a SIP revision that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are at least as stringent as the budgets codified for Georgia, and revises its regional haze plan to replace reliance on CAIR with CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. In its letter, Georgia committed to providing this SIP revision within one year of EPA's final conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the infrastructure SIP revisions. On September 26, 2016 (81 FR 65899), EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portion of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on this commitment letter from the State. In accordance with the State's May 26, 2016, commitment letter, Georgia submitted a SIP revision on July 26, 2017, to adopt provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs and to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. As noted above, EPA approved the portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP revision adopting CSAPR. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017).

    EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State's July 26, 2017, SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert EPA's previous action on Georgia's regional haze plan from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval of this portion of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan. Specifically, EPA's approval of the regional haze portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX BART requirements and first implementation period SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS include measures as necessary to achieve the State-adopted RPGs. Thus, EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze plan, EPA is therefore also proposing to convert the conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; October 22, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014; and December 14, 2015, 2012, annual PM2.5 submissions.

    IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the regional haze portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, regional haze plan as supplemented on November 19, 2010, to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP; and (4) convert EPA's September 26, 2016, conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; the State's October 22, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014; and the State's December 14, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

    • Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 22, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02061 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 170630611-8032-01] RIN 0648-BH01 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Regulatory Amendment 4 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). If implemented, this proposed rule would increase the annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster based on updated landings information and revised scientific recommendations. This proposed rule would also prohibit the use of traps for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The purposes of this proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 4 are to ensure catch levels for spiny lobster are based on the best scientific information available, to prevent overfishing, and to minimize potential negative effects of traps on habitat and protected species interactions in the South Atlantic EEZ.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before March 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0125” by any of the following methods:

    Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0125, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit all written comments to Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

    Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 4, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory flexibility analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_sa/spiny_lobster/A4_lobster_acl/a4_lobster_acl_index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The spiny lobster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.).

    Background

    In 2012, NMFS implemented Amendment 10 to the FMP, which included an overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), ACL, annual catch target (ACT), accountability measure (AM), and status determination criteria for spiny lobster (76 FR 75488; December 2, 2011). The OFL and ABC were specified using Tier 3a of the Gulf Council's ABC Control Rule (control rule), as recommended by the Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (Councils). Applying the control rule, the SSCs recommended an OFL equal to the mean of the most recent 10 years of landings (fishing years 2000/2001 through 2009/2010) plus 2 standard deviations, and an ABC equal to the mean of the most recent 10 years of landings plus 1.5 standard deviations. This resulted in an OFL of 7.9 million lb (3.58 million kg) and an ABC of 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxy and overfishing threshold (maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT)) were set equal to the OFL. The ACL was set equal to the ABC. The ACT, which equals the optimum yield (OY), was set at 90 percent of the ACL.

    Since that time, the spiny lobster ACT has been exceeded three times, the ACL has been exceeded twice, and the OFL has been exceeded once. The AM established in Amendment 10 requires that the Councils convene a review panel if the spiny lobster ACT is exceeded, and the National Standard 1 guidelines state that if the ACL is exceeded more than once in a 4-year period, then the system of ACLs and AMs should be re-evaluated and modified, as necessary, to improve its performance and effectiveness (50 CFR 600.310(g)(7)). Therefore, The Councils convened a Spiny Lobster Review Panel (Review Panel) in February 2015, and again in March 2016, to assess whether action was needed to prevent the ACL from being exceeded. The Review Panel recommended that the catch levels for spiny lobster be based on the mean of landings during the fishing years 1991/1992 through 2015/2016, which is a longer time period than the 10-year period that was used to determine the current catch levels (fishing years 2000/2001 through 2009/2010). This is because the landings were historically low during the 2000/2001 through 2009/2010 time period used for the calculation of the current catch levels. The Review Panel determined that using the longer time period to calculate catch levels would better capture the dynamics of the fishery. Both SSCs agreed with the Review Panel and recommended using the longer time series of landings under Tier 3a of the control rule for setting the OFL and ABC. Using the longer time series of landings results in a revised OFL of 10.46 million lb (4.74 million kg) and a revised ABC of 9.60 million lb (4.35 million kg). Although the revised OFL and ABC are higher than the current OFL and ABC, using the longer time series is a more precautionary approach for calculating OFL and ABC than using the most recent 10 years of landings (2006/2007 through 2015/2016) because these landings have been historically high. The longer time series incorporates periods of both low and high landings.

    Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would modify the stock ACL and ACT for spiny lobster and prohibit the use of traps for the recreational harvest of spiny lobster in the South Atlantic EEZ.

    Stock ACL and ACT

    This proposed rule would revise the stock ACL and ACT based on the new ABC recommendation provided by the Councils' SSCs. As stated above, the current spiny lobster stock ACL is equal to the ABC, and the stock ACT is set at 90 percent of the ACL. This proposed rule would set the ACL equal to the ABC of 9.60 million lb (4.35 million kg), which is based on the mean landings from the years 1991/1992-2015/2016 plus 1.5 standard deviations. The ACT would be set at 8.64 million lb (3.92 million kg), which is 90 percent of the proposed ACL. As established in Amendment 10, the OY equals the ACT. NMFS does not expect the increase in the ACT and ACL to result in negative biological effects on the stock because current fishing effort is limited by the number of trap tags issued by the state of Florida, by commercial and recreational bag and possession limits in the EEZ in the South Atlantic and the Gulf EEZ, and by the duration of the fishing season, which varies depending on the area where spiny lobsters are harvested.

    Recreational Harvest of Spiny Lobster Using Traps in the South Atlantic EEZ

    Currently, the use of traps is not allowed for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in the EEZ off Florida, but traps may be used for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in the South Atlantic EEZ off the states of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. This proposed rule would prohibit the use of traps for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in all of the South Atlantic EEZ.

    The public has expressed little interest in using traps for the recreational harvest of spiny lobster, which may be a result of the two lobsters per person per trip limit applicable to harvest from Federal waters of the South Atlantic. However, the Councils are concerned that using this gear may become more popular and result in potential negative impacts on essential fish habitat and an increase in the use of vertical lines that may interact with protected species, for example, by creating entanglement issues. Trap gear also has the potential to “ghost fish,” which occurs when a trap continues to fish after it is lost. Because spiny lobsters are larger in size in the EEZ off Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina than in the EEZ off Florida, current trap configuration may not be efficient in capturing spiny lobster in these areas, and recreational traps used in these areas may require larger mouths (entrances), which could result in greater bycatch of fish, crabs, and other invertebrates, including undersized spiny lobsters.

    Measures in Regulatory Amendment 4 Not in Codified Through This Proposed Rule

    As established in Amendment 10, the MSY proxy and MFMT are equal to the OFL, which was set at 7.9 million lb (3.58 million kg). Consistent with Amendment 10, Regulatory Amendment 4 would modify the MSY proxy and MFMT values, so that they are equal to the revised OFL of 10.46 million lb (4.74 million kg).

    Corrections in This Proposed Rule Not Included in Regulatory Amendment 4

    In addition to the measures associated with Regulatory Amendment 4, this proposed rule would also correct regulatory language that was mistakenly included in the final rule implementing Amendment 10. Amendment 10 modified the restrictions on the possession of undersized spiny lobsters for use as attractants in the commercial sector. Prior to Amendment 10, no more than fifty undersized spiny lobsters, or one per trap aboard the vessel, whichever was greater, could be retained on board for use as attractants. Amendment 10 changed this restriction to allow for no more than fifty per vessel plus one per trap aboard the vessel. This change was correctly included in the proposed rule to implement Amendment 10 (76 FR 59102; September 23, 2011), but was inadvertently changed in the final rule to include the additional phrase (from the prior language), “whichever is greater” (76 FR 75488; December 2, 2011). The final rule also inadvertently included this restriction twice in the applicable paragraph. To correct these mistakes, this proposed rule would change 50 CFR 622.407(c) to remove the phase “whichever is greater” and remove the first occurrence of the duplicative sentence. This proposed rule would also change the wording of the restriction slightly to more directly state that the total number of undersized spiny lobster allowed onboard a vessel is fifty plus one per trap. The restriction currently states: “No more than fifty undersized spiny lobsters, and one per trap aboard the vessel, may be retained aboard for use as attractants.” The proposed rule would change the “and” to “plus” so that the sentence reads: “No more than fifty undersized spiny lobsters plus one per trap aboard the vessel may be retained aboard for use as attractants.”

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 4, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this proposed rule and its purpose and need are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is described below.

    This proposed rule would directly affect commercial and recreational fishing for spiny lobster in the Gulf EEZ and the South Atlantic EEZ. Anglers (recreational fishers) are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Consequently, estimates of the number of anglers directly affected by the rule and the impacts on them are not provided here.

    Any commercial fishing business that operates a fishing vessel that lands whole spiny lobster in the Gulf EEZ and/or the South Atlantic EEZ, except off Florida, must have a valid Federal spiny lobster permit that is specifically assigned to that vessel. In the EEZ off Florida, a commercial vessel must have either a valid Federal spiny lobster permit or all required Florida licenses and certificates to harvest the species. Any vessel that lands only the tail from a spiny lobster caught in the EEZ must have a Federal tailing permit on board in addition to either a valid Federal spiny lobster permit or all required Florida licenses and certificates. Both Federal permits are open access permits.

    As of March 1, 2017, there were 185 Federal spiny lobster and 210 spiny lobster tailing permits issued to a total of 272 vessels. Approximately 45 percent of those vessels have both Federal permits. These 272 vessels make up the federally permitted spiny lobster fleet. Approximately 75 percent of the Federal permits are held by businesses in Florida, followed in turn by those in North Carolina with approximately 12 percent. Florida businesses account for all but one of the vessels with only a tailing permit. NMFS estimates a total of 198 businesses hold all of the Federal spiny lobster permits assigned to the above 272 vessels.

    The individual businesses have from 1 to 11 vessels in the federally permitted spiny lobster fleet. Approximately 84 percent of the 198 businesses have only one vessel in the fleet, and collectively these businesses account for 61 percent of the 272 federally permitted vessels. Approximately 95 percent of the businesses have no more than 2 vessels, while 3 percent have 6 or more vessels and collectively make up approximately 18 percent of the 272 vessels.

    Approximately 99 percent of commercial landings of spiny lobster occur in Florida. Hence, NMFS expects that almost all of the impacts of the rule will be on commercial fishing businesses located in Florida, and within Florida, approximately 91 percent of the state's landings are in Monroe County.

    For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS expects that most to all of the businesses that harvest spiny lobster in the EEZ (with or without a Federal permit) are small businesses, based on historical average annual revenues per vessel that are less than $50,000.

    Regulatory Amendment 4 would revise the MSY proxy and MFMT. Those revisions would have no direct impact on any small businesses, and any indirect impact is dependent on subsequent action.

    This proposed rule would increase the ACL to 9.60 million lb (4.35 million kg), and ACT to 8.64 million lb (3.92 million kg), whole weight. There would be no impact on small businesses, however, because there is no Federal closure if landings reach or are projected to reach the ACL or ACT.

    In conclusion, NMFS expects this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

    No new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 640

    Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, South Atlantic, Spiny lobster, Trap.

    Dated: January 30, 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 parts 600 and 622 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Subpart R—Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 2. In § 600.725, in the table in paragraph (v), under heading “III. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council,” under entry 7, revise entry B pertaining to the “Recreational fishery” in the “Authorized gear types” column to read as follows:
    § 600.725 General prohibitions.

    (v) * * *

    Fishery Authorized gear types *         *         *         *         *         *         * III. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7. South Atlantic Spiny Lobster Fishery (FMP): *         *         *         *         *         *         * B. Recreational fishery B. Dip net, bully net, snare, hand harvest. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 3. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    4. In § 622.404, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 622.404 Prohibited gear and methods.

    (d) Except for black sea bass pots and golden crab traps as allowed in § 622.188 and § 622.248, respectively, the possession of all other traps is prohibited onboard a vessel in the South Atlantic EEZ when spiny lobster subject to the recreational bag and possession limits specified in § 622.408 is also onboard the vessel. The recreational harvest of spiny lobster using a trap is prohibited in the South Atlantic EEZ. 

    5. In § 622.407, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 622.407 Minimum size limits and other harvest limitations.

    (c) Undersized attractants. A live spiny lobster under the minimum size limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that is harvested in the EEZ by a trap may be retained aboard the harvesting vessel for future use as an attractant in a trap provided it is held in a live well aboard the vessel. The live well must provide a minimum of 3/4 gallons (1.7 liters) of seawater per spiny lobster. An undersized spiny lobster so retained must be released to the water alive and unharmed immediately upon leaving the trap lines and prior to one hour after official sunset each day. No more than fifty undersized spiny lobsters plus one per trap aboard the vessel may be retained aboard for use as attractants.

    6. Revise § 622.411, to read as follows:
    § 622.411 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    For recreational and commercial spiny lobster landings combined, the ACL is 9.60 million lb (4.35 million kg), whole weight. The ACT is 8.64 million lb, (3.92 million kg) whole weight.

    [FR Doc. 2018-02119 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 23 Friday, February 2, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2018-0001] Notice of Request for Renewal of an Approved Information Collection (Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products) AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew an approved information collection regarding the regulatory requirements for mechanically tenderized beef products. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on June 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Docket Clerk, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2018-0001. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW, Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products.

    OMB Number: 0583-0160.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 06/30/2018.

    Type of Request: Renewal of an approved information collection.

    Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). FSIS protects the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and correctly labeled and packaged.

    FSIS is requesting renewal of an approved information collection addressing paperwork requirements related to labeling requirements for mechanically tenderized beef products. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on June 30, 2018.

    FSIS requires the use of the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” on the labels of raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with marinade or solution, unless these products are to be fully cooked at an official establishment. The Agency also requires that the product name for the beef products include the descriptive designation “mechanically tenderized” and an accurate description of the beef component. Establishments and retail facilitites that use these labels on product do not have to submit them to FSIS for approval prior to use.

    FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .5833 hours per response.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 555.

    Estimated average number of responses per respondent: 60.908.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 33,804.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 19,719 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

    Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Done at Washington, DC on: January 30, 2018. Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02092 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service (RHS).

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's intention to request a revision of a currently approved information collection in support of the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) grant program.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by April 3, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shirley Stevenson, Community Programs Specialist, Community Programs Division, RHS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Mail stop 0787, Washington, DC 20250-0787, Telephone (202) 205-9685, Email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Rural Community Development Initiative.

    OMB Number: 0575-0180.

    Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: RHS, an Agency within the USDA Rural Development mission area, will administer the RCDI grant program through their Community Facilities Division. The intent of the RCDI grant program is to develop the capacity and ability of rural area recipients to undertake projects through a program of technical assistance provided by qualified intermediary organizations. The eligible recipients are nonprofit organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally recognized Indian tribes. The intermediary may be a qualified private, nonprofit, or public (including tribal) organization. The intermediary is the applicant. The intermediary must have been organized a minimum of 3 years at the time of application. The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds, in the form of cash or committed funding, in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.27 hours per response.

    Respondents: Intermediaries and recipients.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 900.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.94.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 3,550.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,526.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0040.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. Curtis M. Anderson, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02063 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service (RHS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; Comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the above-named Agency to request a revision of a currently approved information collection in support of the Community Facilities Grant Program.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by April 3, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karla Peiffer, Asset Risk Management Specialist, Community Programs, RHS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Mail Stop 0787, Washington, DC 20250-0787. Telephone: ((515) 284-4729. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Community Facilities Grant Program.

    OMB Number: 0575-0173.

    Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2018

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Community Programs, a division of the Rural Housing Service (RHS), is part of the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development mission area. The Agency is authorized by Section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926), as amended, to make grants to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes to develop essential community facilities and services for public use in rural areas. These facilities include schools, libraries, child care, hospitals, clinics, assisted-living facilities, fire and rescue stations, police stations, community centers, public buildings, and transportation. Through its Community Programs, the Department of Agriculture is striving to ensure that such facilities are readily available to all rural communities.

    Information will be collected by the field offices from applicants, consultants, lenders, and public entities. The collection of information is considered the minimum necessary to effectively evaluate the overall scope of the project.

    Failure to collect information could have an adverse impact on effectively carrying out the mission, administration, processing, and program requirements.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.8 hours per response.

    Respondents: Public bodies, nonprofit corporations and associations, and federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,272.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 4.07.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,181.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 9,269 hours.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0040.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: January 24, 2018. Curtis M. Anderson, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02064 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-6-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 81—Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Application for Reorganization Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Pease Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 81, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 30, 2018.

    FTZ 81 was approved by the FTZ Board on January 20, 1983 (Board Order 207, 48 FR 4308, January 31, 1983) and expanded on April 12, 1985 (Board Order 302, 50 FR 15948, April 23, 1985) and on June 25, 1997 (Board Order 906, 52 FR 36259, July 7, 1997).

    The current zone includes the following sites: Site 1 (11 acres)—Port Authority marine terminal, Portsmouth Harbor, Portsmouth; Site 2 (175 acres)—Portsmouth Industrial Park, Lafayette Road, Portsmouth; Site 4 (1,468 acres)—Manchester Airport, 1 Brita Way and 16 Delta Drive, Londonderry; Site 5 (2,095 acres)—Pease International Tradeport, 601 Spaulding Turnpike, Portsmouth; and, Site 6 (45 acres)—UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 52 Pettingill Road, Londonderry.

    The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be the Counties of Rockingham, Strafford, Carroll (partial), Belknap (partial), Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Sullivan and Grafton (partial), New Hampshire, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Portsmouth and Manchester Customs and Border Protection ports of entry.

    The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include existing Sites 1, 2, 4 and 5 as “magnet” sites and existing Site 6 as a usage-driven site. No new subzones or usage-driven sites are being requested at this time. The application would have no impact on FTZ 81's previously authorized subzones.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 3, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 18, 2018.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02105 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges Gulnihal Yegane, Merkez Mah. Hasat Sok. No: 52/6, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey; and Yanibosna Merkez Mah., Degirmenbahçe Cad. No. 11, Airport Hill Sitesi Blok D.6, Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey; and Egs Bloklari B-1 Blok K.1 No: 114, Yesilkoy Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Turkey; and Huzur mah, Ayazaga Oyak sitesi, 9. Blok, No: 19, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey; and Turgut Reis Mh. Glyimkent Kath Is Merk., K:4 D:4412, Esenler/Istanbul, Turkey; and Onucreis Mah. Giyimkent Sitesi, 3. Sokak No: 118, Esenler/Istanbul, Turkey Trigron Lojistik Kargo Limited Sirketi, Yanibosna Merkez Mah., Degirmenbahçe Cad. No. 11, Airport Hill Sitesi Blok D.6, Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey; Ufuk Avia Lojistik Limited Sirketi, Merkez Mah. Hasat Sok., No: 52/6, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey; RA Havacilik Lojistik Ve Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Yesilce Mah. Dalgic SK., 3/101 Kagithane, Istanbul, Turkey 34000, Respondents.

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations” or “EAR”),1 the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), has requested the issuance of an Order temporarily denying, for a period of 180 days, the export privileges under the Regulations of: Gulnihal Yegane, Trigron Lojistik Kargo Limited Sirketi (“Trigron Lojistik Kargo” or “Trigron”), Ufuk Avia Lojistik Limited Sirketi (“Ufuk Avia Lojistik”), and RA Havacilik Lojistik Ve Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi (“RA Havacilik”). OEE's request and related information indicates that these parties are located in Turkey, at the respective addresses listed on the caption page of this order and on page 8, infra, and that Ms. Yegane owns or controls or is otherwise affiliated with Trigron Lojistik Kargo and the other companies at issue.

    1 The EAR are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The EAR issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov) (“EAA” or the “Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39,005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 766.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.” Id. As to the likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under investigation or charge “is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or negligent[.]” Id. A “[l]ack of information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.” Id.

    As referenced in OEE's request, Gulnihal Yegane was placed on BIS's Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations, on December 12, 2013 (see 78 FR 75,463), for engaging in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. See 15 CFR 744.11. Ms. Yegane was, namely, one of 19 persons engaged in the development and operation of a procurement scheme that directly supported the operation of Iranian airline Mahan Airways. See 78 FR 75,463 (Dec. 12, 2013). Mahan Airways has been on BIS's Denied Persons List since March 2008, due to numerous significant, continuing, deliberate, and covert violations of the Regulations.2 In addition, since October 2011, it has been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“SDGT”) by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) pursuant to Executive Order 13224 for providing financial, material and technological support to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). See 77 FR 64,427 (October 18, 2011).

    2 Mahan Airways' status as a denied person was most recently renewed by BIS through a temporary denial order issued on December 20, 2017. See 82 FR 61,745 (Dec. 29, 2017). The December 20, 2017 renewal order summarizes the initial TDO issued against Mahan in March 2008, and the other renewal orders prior to December 20, 2017. See id.

    As discussed in the temporary denial renewal orders issued by BIS against Mahan Airways in July 2013, and February 2014, OEE obtained evidence during 2013 indicating that Mahan Airways had been involved in efforts to unlawfully obtain a U.S.-origin GE CF6-50C2 aircraft engine via transshipment through Turkey. The evidence indicated that Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (“Pioneer Logistics”), a Turkish company involved in procuring and supplying aircraft parts, and its director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane. See Mahan Airways, et al., TDO Renewal Order dated January 24, 2014, (79 FR 4871 (Jan. 30, 2014)); Mahan Airways, et al., TDO Renewal Order dated July 31, 2013 (78 FR 48,138 (Aug. 72013)).3

    3 OFAC subsequently designated Pioneer Logistics as a SDGT, in doing so describing Pioneer Logistics as a key Mahan Airways front company that served as an intermediary for Mahan Airways, acting for or on behalf of Mahan by purchasing and receiving aviation-related materials. OFAC also stated that in an effort to help Mahan evade U.S. Government sanctions, Pioneer Logistics shipped aircraft parts to another U.S.-designated Mahan front company for onward delivery to Mahan, and that Mahan used Pioneer Logistics as a cutout for the repair and overhaul of aircraft parts and as a cutout to evade sanctions in order to purchase aircraft tires for its aircraft. See OFAC Press Release dated Aug. 29, 2014, copy at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2618.aspx; 79 FR 55072 (Sept. 15, 2014)).

    Ms. Yegane remains on the Entity List, and as a result of that listing, no item subject to the Regulations may be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to her without prior license authorization from BIS. See 15 CFR 744.11; Supp No. 4 to 15 CFR part 744. Moreover, BIS's review policy regarding such applications involving Ms. Yegane is a presumption of denial. Id.

    In its request, OEE has presented evidence indicating that Ms. Yegane and the other respondents are engaged in procurement activities relating to U.S.-origin aircraft engines and parts for or on behalf of one or more Iranian airlines, operating as transaction parties and/or facilitating transactions that are structured to evade the Regulations (as well as the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (“ITSR”), 31 CFR part 560, administered by OFAC) 4 by routing unlicensed exports or reexports through Turkey to Iran.

    4 Pursuant to Section 746.7(e) of the EAR, 15 CFR 746.7(e), no person may export or reexport any item that is subject to the EAR if such transaction is prohibited by the ITSR and has not been authorized by OFAC. The prohibition found in Section 746.7(e) applies whether or not the EAR require a license for the export or reexport in question. Id.

    The evidence presented relates to transactions that occurred between at least September 2016, through at least December 2017. Specifically, in September 2016, Ufuk Avia Lojistik, with Ms. Yegane listed as its contact person, was identified in the consignee field on an air waybill for an unlicensed shipment of a CFM56-3C1 jet aircraft engine, engine serial number (“ESN”) 857203, from the United States to Turkey.5 The engine is used on Boeing 737 aircraft, and is subject to the Regulations and controlled for anti-terrorism reasons when exported to Iran, as described in Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 9A991.d and pursuant to Section 742.8 of the EAR.

    5 Yegane's full or precise role at Ufuk Avia Lojistik is not entirely clear from the evidence, but there is some information indicating that she served as its general manager.

    Documentation and correspondence relating to the transaction indicate that the engine was destined for sale or lease to an Iranian airline, contrary to what appeared on export paperwork. The U.S. Government was able to prevent this engine from being transshipped from Turkey on to Iran by returning the engine to the United States pursuant to a redelivery order issued by OEE under Section 758.8 of the Regulations on September 23, 2016.

    OEE's investigation also shows that, having been prevented from obtaining ESN 857203 for transshipment to Iran, Ms. Yegane was involved in efforts to obtain other CFM56-3C1 engines (ESNs 856772 and 857999) from the United States for that purpose between September 2016 and November 2016, with the transactions being re-structured and re-routed so that neither Ufuk Avia Lojistik nor Ms. Yegane would be listed in the transaction documents and another company listed as the consignee. The U.S. Government was able to thwart one of these intended transshipments to Iran, with BIS issuing a redelivery order on November 4, 2016, as to ESN 857999. Moreover, in January 2017, Ms. Yegane, Trigron Lojistik Kargo, and RA Havacilik were involved in the transshipment of a CFM56-3C1 jet aircraft engine of unknown serial number, but believed to be subject to the EAR, to Iran.

    BIS's investigation has also showed that Trigron Lojistik Kargo is owned and operated by Ms. Yegane and has more recently been used, in conjunction with RA Havacilik, in the routing and attempted routing of shipments from the United States destined for transshipment to Iran via Turkey. The evidence presented by OEE indicates that RA Havacilik was formed on September 26, 2016, three days after BIS ordered the redelivery of ESN 857023. The evidence also suggests that Yegane and/or Trigron may own or control RA Havacilik; at the very least, the evidence indicates that they have been acting in concert to procure aircraft parts from the United States, items subject to the EAR (and the ITSR), for transshipment to Iran. BIS has uncovered several intended exports of such aircraft parts from the United States to RA Havacilik in December 2017, including, for example, gaskets and isolators used on Boeing aircraft. The evidence presented by OEE indicated that at least one of these December 2017 shipments from the United States was, in fact, transshipped on to Iran, contrary to the consignee and buyer information listed on the transaction paperwork. BIS detained other shipments.

    In sum, the facts and circumstances here and related evidence indicate a high likelihood of future violations of the Regulations and U.S. export control laws, including Ms. Yegane's previously-identified involvement in an aviation procurement network facilitating trade to Iran for or on behalf of Mahan Airways, a denied person (and SDGT); the repeated attempts to evade the long-standing and well-known U.S. embargo against Iran by obtaining and facilitating the acquisition of controlled jet aircraft engines and other aircraft parts from the United States for transshipment to Iran from at least September 2016, through at least December 2017; and the deliberate, covert, and determined nature of the misconduct and clear disregard for complying with U.S. export control laws.

    Accordingly, I find that the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that a violation of the Regulations is imminent. As such, a temporary denial order (“TDO”) is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with Gulnihal Yegane, Trigron Lojistik Kargo Limited Sirketi, Ufuk Avia Lojistik Limited Sirketi, and RA Havacilik Lojistik Ve Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi in export or reexport transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the Regulations.

    Accordingly, I find that an Order denying the export privileges of Gulnihal Yegane, Trigron Lojistik Kargo Limited Sirketi, Ufuk Avia Lojistik Limited Sirketi, and RA Havacilik Lojistik Ve Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi is necessary, in the public interest, to prevent imminent violation of the Regulations.

    This Order is being issued on an ex parte basis without a hearing based upon BIS's showing of an imminent violation in accordance with Section 766.24 of the Regulations.

    It is therefore ordered:

    First, that GULNIHAL YEGANE, with an address at Merkez Mah. Hasat Sok., No: 52/6, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey, and at Yanibosna Merkez Mah., Degirmenbahçe Cad. No. 11, Airport Hill Sitesi Blok D.6, Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey, and at Egs Bloklari B-1 Blok K.1 No: 114, Yesilkoy Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Turkey, and at Huzur mah, Ayazaga Oyak sitesi, 9. Blok, No: 19, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey, and at Turgut Reis Mh. Glyimkent Kath Is Merk. K:4 D:4412 Esenler/Istanbul, Turkey, and at Onucreis Mah. Giyimkent Sitesi 3. Sokak No:118 Esenler/Istanbul, Turkey; TRIGRON LOJISTIK KARGO LIMITED SIRKETI, with an address at Yanibosna Merkez Mah., Degirmenbahçe Cad. No. 11, Airport Hill Sitesi Blok D.6, Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey; UFUK AVIA LOJISTIK LIMITED SIRKETI, with an address at Merkez Mah. Hasat Sok., No: 52/6, Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey; and RA HAVACILIK LOJISTIK VE TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI, with an address at Yesilce Mah. Dalgic SK., 3/101 Kagithane, Istanbul, Turkey 34000, and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or assigns, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.

    Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, Respondents Gulnihal Yegane, Trigron Lojistik Kargo Limited Sirketi, Ufuk Avia Lojistik Limited Sirketi, or RA Havacilik Lojistik Ve Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. Respondents Gulnihal Yegane, Trigron Lojistik Kargo Limited Sirketi, Ufuk Avia Lojistik Limited Sirketi, and RA Havacilik Lojistik Ve Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.

    A copy of this Order shall be served on Respondents and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

    Dated: January 26, 2018. Kevin J. Kurland, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02067 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-067, A-475-839, and A-583-863] Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable February 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 or Renato Barreda at (202) 482-0317 (the People's Republic of China (China)), and Denisa Ursu at (202) 482-2285 or Michael Bowen at (202) 482-0768 (Italy), Robert Palmer at (202) 482-9068 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 25, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of forged steel fittings from China, Italy and Taiwan.1 Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than March 14, 2018.

    1See Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 50614 (November 1, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request. See 19 CFR 351.205(e).

    On January 10, 2018, the petitioners 2 submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations. The petitioners stated that they request postponement because under the current issue date for the preliminary determinations, Commerce will not have received all questionnaire responses and obtained sufficient information for making preliminary determinations.3

    2 The petitioners are Bonney Forge Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW).

    3See Letter from the petitioners re: “Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Request to Extend Deadlines for Preliminary Determinations,” dated January 10, 2018.

    For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than May 3, 2018. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: January 29, 2018. Christian Marsh, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02103 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application for Export Trade Certificate of Review AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before April 3, 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 Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230. Phone: 202-482-5131. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Title III of the Export Trading Company Act (hereinafter “the Act”) of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, an Export Trade Certificate of Review to any person that establishes that its proposed export trade, export trade activities, and methods of operation meet the four standards found in Section 303(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. An Export Trade Certificate of Review provides the certificate holder and its members with limited antitrust preclearance for specified export-related activities. Application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review is voluntary. The information to be collected is found at 15 CFR part 325.3—Export Trade Certificates of Review. The collection of information is necessary for both the Departments of Commerce and Justice to conduct an analysis, in order to determine whether the applicant and its members are eligible to receive the protection of an Export Trade Certificate of Review and whether the applicant's proposed export-related conduct meets the standards in Section 303(a) of the Act. The collection of information constitutes the essential basis of the statutory determinations to be made by the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General.

    The Department of Commerce conducts its economic and legal analysis of the information supplied by applicants through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis and the Office of the General Counsel. In the Department of Justice, analysis is conducted by the Antitrust Division.

    Title III was enacted to reduce uncertainty regarding the application of U.S. antitrust laws to export activities. An Export Trade Certificate of Review provides its holder and members named in the Certificate with (a) protection from government actions under state and federal antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate, and (b) certain protection from private suits, by limiting liability in private actions to actual damages when the challenged activities are covered by an Export Trade Certificate of Review.

    II. Method of Collection

    The form is sent by request to U.S. firms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0125.

    Form Number(s): ITA-4093P.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9.

    Estimated Time per Response: 32 hours (application); 2 hours (annual report).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 440 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02078 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-894] Certain Tapered Roller Bearings From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain tapered roller bearings (TRBs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable February 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse or Manuel Rey, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-5518, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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. Accordingly, the revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is now January 29, 2018.1

    1See 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.

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 25, 2017.2 On November 21, 2017, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation.3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    2See Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 82 FR 34477 (July 25, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    3See Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 82 FR 55351 (November 21, 2017).

    4See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain TRBs from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. After evaluating these comments,7 Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

    5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    6See Initiation Notice, 82 FR at 34478.

    7 For further discussion of these comments, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Allegation of a Particular Market Situation

    On October 24, 2017, the petitioner alleged that a particular market situation (PMS) existed during the POI with respect to the production of TRBs in Korea.8 On December 15, 2017, the petitioner supplemented its PMS allegation, including additional new factual information to support this allegation.9 After analyzing the information submitted by the petitioner, we preliminarily find that the petitioner's PMS allegation, and supporting factual information, is not sufficient to find that a PMS exists. For our analysis of the petitioner's PMS allegation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    8See the petitioner's letter, “Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea—Petitioner's Preliminary Particular Market Situation Comments and Section D RFI,” dated October 24, 2017.

    9See Petitioner's Letter, “Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from Korea: Petitioner's Pre-Preliminary Determination Comments,” dated December 15, 2017.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Alternatively, as appropriate, constructed export price has been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, or any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Bearing Art 10 and Schaeffler Korea Corporation (Schaeffler) that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Commerce calculated the all-others' rate using a weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents using each respondent's publicly-ranged quantity of U.S. sales for the merchandise under consideration.11

    10 Commerce selected Bearing Art Corporation as a mandatory respondent in this investigation. Further, for this preliminary determination, Commerce preliminarily has determined to collapse, and treat as a single entity, this company and two affiliated parties, Iljin Bearing Corporation and Iljin Global Corporation. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5-7. The collapsed entity is hereinafter collectively referred to as “Bearing Art.”

    11 With two respondents under examination, Commerce normally calculates (A) a weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents weighted using each respondent's actual U.S. sale quantity; (B) a simple average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents using each respondent's publicly-ranged U.S. sale quantities for the merchandise under consideration. Commerce then compares (B) and (C) to (A) and selects the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all-other producers and exporters. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data was available, Commerce based the all-others rate on the publicly ranged sales data of the mandatory respondents. For a complete analysis of the data, please see the All-Others' Rate Calculation Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter or producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Bearing Art Corporation/Iljin Bearing Corporation/Iljin Global Corporation 45.53 Schaeffler Korea Corporation 21.23 All-Others 33.42
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making this preliminary determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    12See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On January 2, 2018, and January 10, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Schaeffler and Bearing Art, respectively, requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.13 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    13See Letter from Schaeffler, “Request to Extend the Final Determination: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Tapered Roller Bearings from Korea (A-580-894),” dated January 2, 2018; and Letter from Bearing Art, “Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from Korea: Request to Postpone Final Determination,” dated January 10, 2018.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: January 29, 2018. Christian Marsh, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation is certain tapered roller bearings. The scope covers all tapered roller bearings with a nominal outside cup diameter of eight inches and under, regardless of type of steel used to produce the bearing, whether of inch or metric size, and whether the tapered roller bearing is a thrust bearing or not. Certain tapered roller bearings include: Finished cup and cone assemblies entering as a set, finished cone assemblies entering separately, and finished parts (cups, cones, and tapered rollers). Certain tapered roller bearings are sold individually as a set (cup and cone assembly), as a cone assembly, as a finished cup, or packaged as a kit with one or several tapered roller bearings, a seal, and grease. The scope of the investigation includes finished rollers and finished cones that have not been assembled with rollers and a cage. Certain tapered roller bearings can be a single row or multiple rows (e.g., two- or four-row), and a cup can handle a single cone assembly or multiple cone assemblies.

    Finished cups, cones, and rollers differ from unfinished cups, cones, and rollers in that they have undergone further processing after heat treatment, including, but not limited to, final machining, grinding, and/or polishing. Mere heat treatment of a cup, cone, or roller (without any further processing after heat treatment) does not render the cup, cone, or roller a finished part for the purpose of this investigation. Finished tapered roller bearing parts are understood to mean parts which, at the time of importation, are ready for assembly (if further assembly is required) and require no further finishing or fabrication, such as grinding, lathing, machining, polishing, heat treatment, etc. Finished parts may require grease, bolting, and/or pressing as part of final assembly, and the requirement that these processes be performed, subsequent to importation, does not remove an otherwise finished tapered roller bearing from the scope.

    Tapered roller bearings that have a nominal outer cup diameter of eight inches and under that may be used in wheel hub units, rail bearings, or other housed bearings, but entered separately, are included in the scope to the same extent as described above. All tapered roller bearings meeting the written description above, and not otherwise excluded, are included, regardless of coating.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are:

    (1) Unfinished parts of tapered roller bearings (cups, cones, and tapered rollers);

    (2) cages, whether finished or unfinished;

    (3) the non-tapered roller bearing components of subject kits (e.g., grease, seal); and

    (4) tapered roller bearing wheel hub units, rail bearings, and other housed tapered roller bearings (flange, take up cartridges, and hanger units incorporating tapered rollers).

    Tapered roller bearings subject to this investigation are primarily classifiable under subheadings 8482.20.0040, 8482.20.0061, 8482.20.0070, 8482.20.0081, 8482.91.0050, 8482.99.1550, and 8482.99.1580 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).14 Parts may also enter under 8482.99.4500. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    14 Prior to July 2016, products entering under 8482.20.0061 entered under 8482.20.0060, products entering under 8482.20.0081 entered under 8482.20.0080, and products entering under 8482.99.1550 entered under 8482.99.1540.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Affiliation and Collapsing VI. PMS Allegation VII. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VIII. Date of Sale IX. Product Comparisons X. Export Price/Constructed Export Price XI. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices E. Price-to-CV Comparisons XII. Currency Conversion XIII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-02104 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-861] Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that low melt polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from Taiwan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable February 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Janz or Ajay Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972 or (202) 482-1993, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 24, 2017.1 On November 20, 2017, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until January 23, 2018.2 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 determination of this investigation is now January 26, 2018. 3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 34277 (July 24, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 55091 (November 20, 2017).

    3See 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,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    4See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is low melt PSF from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).6 During this period, no interested party commented on the scope of this investigation; however, we received comments on the overlap between the scope of this investigation and other proceedings before Commerce.7

    5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    6See Initiation Notice.

    7See Petitioner's Letter, “Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan—Petitioner's Comments on Potential Scope Overlap,” dated October 5, 2017. The petitioner in this case is Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America.

    Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice to eliminate the overlap in product coverage with the existing PSF Taiwan AD order.8 See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    8See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated an export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that this rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation.9 Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for FENC is the margin assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

    9 We selected two mandatory respondents in this investigation: FENC and Far Eastern Textile Limited. See Memorandum, “Respondent Selection for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,” dated August 7, 2017. FENC subsequently provided information demonstrating that in 2009 it changed its name from Far Eastern Textile Limited to FENC. See FENC's October 19, 2017 Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response at SE-3. Therefore, we are examining FENC as the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation. For a complete analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Far Eastern New Century Corporation 52.00 All-Others 52.00
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    10See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On January 2, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), FENC requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.11 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    11See FENC's Letter, “Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber (PSF),” dated January 2, 2018.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: January 26, 2018. P. Lee Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is synthetic staple fibers, not carded or combed, specifically bi-component polyester fibers having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component (low melt PSF). The scope includes bi-component polyester staple fibers of any denier or cut length. The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a finish or dye, or not coated.

    Excluded from the scope of the investigation on low melt PSF from Taiwan are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty orders on certain polyester staple fiber from Taiwan. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).

    Low melt PSF is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5503.20.0015. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Respondent Selection VI. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VII. Date of Sale VIII. Product Comparisons IX. Export Price X. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices XI. Currency Conversion XII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-02043 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review in the Matter of Softwood Lumber From Canada: Determinations (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-03) AGENCY:

    United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    A Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of the Government of Canada; Government of Alberta; Government of British Columbia; Government of Ontario; Government of Québec; Alberta Softwood Lumber Trade Council; British Columbia Lumber Trade Council; Conseil de l'Industrie forestier du Québec and Ontario Forest Industries Association; Canfor Corporation; J.D. Irving, Limited; Resolute FP Canada Inc. and Rene Bernard Inc.; Tembec Inc. and Eacom Timber Corporation; and West Fraser Mills Ltd. with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on January 19, 2018 and on behalf of Western Forest Products, Inc. on January 26, 2018, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904. Panel Review was requested of the U.S. International Trade Commission's final injury determination regarding Softwood Lumber from Canada. The final determination was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2017 (82 FR 61,587). The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned case number USA-CDA-2018-1904-03 to this request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.

    The Rules provide that:

    (a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is February 20, 2018);

    (b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is March 5, 2018); and

    (c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Paul E. Morris, U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02135 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-895] Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber (low melt PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable February 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado or Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 or (202) 482-3860, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 24, 2017.1 On November 20, 2017, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until January 23, 2018.2 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 determination of this investigation is now January 26, 2018.3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 34277 (July 24, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 82 FR 55091 (November 20, 2017).

    3See 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,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    4See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (Korea)” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is low melt PSF from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).6 During this period, no interested party commented on the scope of this investigation; however, we received comments on the overlap between the scope of this investigation and other proceedings before Commerce.7

    5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    6See Initiation Notice.

    7See the petitioner's Letter re: Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan—Petitioner's Comments on Potential Scope Overlap, dated October 5, 2017. The petitioner in this case is Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America.

    Nonetheless, Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice to eliminate the overlap in product coverage with the existing PSF Korea antidumping duty order.8 See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    8See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances do not exist for Huvis Corporation (Huvis), and do exist for Toray Chemical Korea Inc. (TCK) and all other producers/exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily found a zero rate for Huvis. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for TCK. Consequently, the rate calculated for TCK is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters in this investigation.

    Preliminary Determination

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Huvis Corporation 0.00 Toray Chemical Korea Inc 16.48 All-Others 16.48
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination, except if that rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise except as explained below; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Huvis is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by this company will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. In such situations, Commerce applies the exclusion to the provisional measures to the producer/exporter combination that was examined in the investigation. Accordingly, Commerce is directing CBP not to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Huvis. Entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this company in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination, are subject to the provisional measures at the all others rate.

    Should the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin be zero or de minimis for Huvis, entries of shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by Huvis will be excluded from the potential antidumping duty order. Such exclusion is not applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by this respondent in any other producer/exporter combinations or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination.

    Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced or exported by TCK and all producers/exporters of low melt PSF from Korea, except for Huvis. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of shipments of subject merchandise from the producer(s) or exporter(s) identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.9 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    9See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On December 1 and December 5, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), TCK and Huvis, respectively, requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.10 On January 8, 2018, the petitioner also requested that Commerce postpone the final determination.11 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    10See TCK's Letter re: Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Request to Postpone the Final Determination, dated December 1, 2017; and Huvis' Letter re: Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Request to Extend the Deadline for the Final Determination, dated December 5, 2017.

    11See the petitioner's Letter re: Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Petitioner's Request Regarding Extension of the Final Determination Deadline, dated January 8, 2018.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: January 26, 2018. P. Lee Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is synthetic staple fibers, not carded or combed, specifically bi-component polyester fibers having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component (low melt PSF). The scope includes bi-component polyester staple fibers of any denier or cut length. The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a finish or dye, or not coated.

    Excluded from the scope of the investigation on low melt PSF from Korea are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from Korea. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).

    Low melt PSF is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5503.20.0015. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Export Price IX. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices X. Critical Circumstances XI. Currency Conversion XII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-02042 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Fisheries Finance Program Requirements 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 April 3, 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 Brian Summers at (301) 427-8783 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a direct loan program to assist in financing certain actions relating to commercial fishing vessels, shoreside fishery facilities, aquaculture operations, and individual fishing quotas. Application information is required to determine eligibility pursuant to 50 CFR part 253 and to determine the type and amount of assistance requested by the applicant. An annual financial statement is required from the recipients to monitor the financial status of the loan.

    II. Method of Collection

    Paper applications.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0012.

    Form Number(s): 88-1.

    Type of Review: Regular (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 311.

    Estimated Time per Response: Application, 10 hours; annual financial statement, 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,102.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,799 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 29, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02040 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Recreational Information Program Social Network Survey 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 April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dave Bard, (301) 427-8197 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for new information collection. The title will be “Marine Recreational Information Program Social Network Survey.”

    In its 2017 review of NOAA Fisheries' Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, also known as the National Academies, recommended the program enhance its communications and outreach activities, particularly among the recreational fishing community. MRIP is taking an objective, research-based approach to doing so. In 2016, MRIP conducted a partner and stakeholder needs assessment. In 2018, MRIP will undertake a social network survey. This effort will help identify relationships, networks, channels, and information flow among a target population, in this case the numerous audiences that comprise the recreational fishing community. Completing this survey and the subsequent analysis will help MRIP more effectively engage with its audiences by identifying key influencers and information pathways, and identifying the areas of greatest need and greatest opportunity for relationship-building.

    A mail survey sample will be drawn from the National Saltwater Angler Registry, a database of licensed recreational anglers living in the U.S. The information comes mostly from state-based saltwater fishing license and registration programs. Questions will explore such issues as broad information channels and pathways among recreational anglers; understanding of and confidence in recreational data collection, estimation, and reporting; confidence in their information sources; awareness of the distinctions and connections between recreational data collection and recreational fisheries management, etc., including regional differences. Data gathered will include angler use of and trust in different sources (e.g., other recreational anglers, recreational fishing clubs, state management agencies, federal management agencies, tackle shops, etc.) and channels (e.g., mass media, social media, personal conversations, online message boards, fishing club meetings, etc.) of fisheries management information. These data will be used to identify key information sources for recreational anglers, evaluate regional differences in information sources, and evaluate recreational angler confidence in management and data collection efforts, thus allowing MRIP to more effectively communicate with recreational anglers on data collection issues by focusing communications efforts on important network channels.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information will be collected through mail surveys.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number:

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (new information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,167.

    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 29, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02044 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF990 Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's (MAFAC's) Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force (CBP Task Force). The CBP Task Force will discuss the issues outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held February 20, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on February 21, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Residence Inn Boise Downtown City Center, 400 S Capitol Blvd., Boise, ID 83702; 208-424-9999.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Cheney; NFMS West Coast Region; 503-231-6730; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/partners#marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-. The CBP Task Force reports to MAFAC and is being convened to discuss and develop recommendations for long-term goals to meet Columbia Basin salmon recovery, conservation needs, and harvest opportunities. These goals will be developed in the context of habitat capacity and other factors that affect salmon mortality. More information is available at the CBP Task Force web page: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html.

    Matters To Be Considered

    The meeting time and agenda are subject to change. Updated information will be available on the CBP Task Force web page above. Meeting topics include discussion of hatchery, hydrosystem, and other ecological considerations, and progress reports on quantitative and qualitative goal setting and basin-wide integration. The meeting is open to the public as observers, and public input will be accepted on February 21, 2018, from 1:15 to 1:45 p.m., limited to the time available.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney; 503-231-6730, by February 12, 2018.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Jennifer Lukens, Director for the Office of Policy, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02102 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Date added to the Procurement List: March 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/26/2017 (82 FR 101) and 12/22/2017 (82 FR 245), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN—Product Name: 5340-00-158-3805—Padlock, Laminated Case, 1.75″, Wide Steel, No Chain Mandatory Source of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support

    Comments were received from one (1) potentially affected subcontractor in response to the Commission's notice published in the Federal Register. In its comment, the subcontractor asserts that “. . . from a legal perspective, it could easily be argued that [we are] the `current contractor' as Lockheed Martin is simply a distributor . . .”

    In accordance with 41 CFR 51-2.4(4), Level of impact on the current contractor, the Commission completed an impact analysis on the commercial entity that is the current contractor for the Government that is providing the product or service being considered for addition to the Procurement List. As the commenter identified itself as a subcontractor to the Government prime contractor, the Commission was not required to consider impact on the commercial entity represented by the commenter.

    NSN—Product Name: MR 1178—Mop, Microfiber, Spin, Includes Bucket Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 41 CFR 51-6.4 Mandatory Sources of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2018-02108 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: March 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the service listed below from a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Service Service Type: Base Supply Center Service Mandatory for: U.S. Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Sheppard Air Force Base, 206 J Avenue, Sheppard AFB, TX Mandatory Source of Supply: Beacon Lighthouse, Inc., Wichita Falls, TX Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA3020 82 CONS LGC Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSNs—Product Names: 7125-00-R10-0001—Lewis & Clark Discovery Box (Lightweight Box) 7125-00-R10-0002—Lewis & Clark Discovery Box (Cabbage Box) Mandatory Source of Supply: Development Workshop, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID Contracting Activity: W071 ENDIST PORTLAND NSN—Product Name: 5340-01-248-2119—Strap, Webbing Mandatory Source of Supply: Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Huntsville, AL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name: 5680-01-227-7577—Weather Strip Mandatory Source of Supply: Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Huntsville, AL Contracting Activity: W4T8 USASMDC HUNTSVILLE NSN—Product Name: 7510-00-NIB-0464—Pencil, Mechanical Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Department of Commerce NSNs—Product Names: 7510-01-580-0849—Refill, 12 Lead Cartridge, 0.7 mm HB 7510-01-580-0850—Refill, 12 Lead Cartridge, 0.5mm HB 7520-01-580-0847—Pencil, Mechanical, .7 MM HB Lead 7520-01-580-0848—Pencil, Mechanical, .5 MM HB Lead Mandatory Source of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSNs—Product Names: 6515-01-364-8553—Gloves, Exam, Disposable, Powdered, Latex, Medium, Natural Color 6515-01-364-8554—Gloves, Exam, Disposable, Powdered, Latex, Large, Natural Color 6515-01-365-6183—Gloves, Exam, Disposable, Powdered, Latex, Small, Natural Color Mandatory Source of Supply: BOSMA Enterprises, Indianapolis, IN Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations, (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2018-02109 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement for Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks Washington, DC AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy (DoN), U.S. Marine Corps, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement for Multiple Projects in Support of Marine Barracks Washington, DC. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) signed the ROD on January 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the ROD along with the Final EIS and other supporting documents are available for public viewing on the DoN's project website at www.mbweis.com, and at the Southeast Public Library, Southwest Public Library, and Northeast Public Library.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    MBW EIS Project Manager: Ms. Julie Darsie, 1314 Harwood Street SE, Building 212, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5018, 202-685-1754.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321-4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508; DoN NEPA regulations (32 CFR part 775); and Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3, Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual (Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, Change 3), the DON, after carefully considering the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives analyzed in a November 2017 Final EIS, announces its decision to implement repair, renovation, and construction projects at Marine Barracks Washington (MBW), District of Columbia (DC). The DON has selected the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5—Site E) from the Final EIS, which provides for the construction of a replacement BEQ Complex at the MBW Annex site totaling approximately 191,405 square feet (SF) and ranging in height from 7-10 stories depending on the massing option chosen during the design phase. Alternative 5 also includes renovation and improvement projects to Building 7 at the Main Post; improvements to the MBW Annex gate at 7th and K Streets; and improvements to building facades, fencing, infrastructure, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping throughout the installation.

    The DoN ROD documents why the DoN has chosen to implement the Preferred Alternative as described in the 2017 Final EIS. This decision adopts all of the measures identified in the Final EIS and the Programmatic Agreement (PA) to avoid or minimize potential adverse cultural resources impacts from the Preferred Alternative. The ROD also includes descriptions and discussions of the anticipated environmental impacts of the Proposed Action.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207; 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: January 25, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02090 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0006] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Campus Safety and Security Survey AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0006. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 216-34, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ashley Higgins, 202-453-6097.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Campus Safety and Security Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0833.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,520.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,717.

    Abstract: The collection of information through the Campus Safety and Security Survey is necessary under section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, with the goal of increasing transparency surrounding college safety and security information for student, prospective students, parents, employees and the general public. The survey is a collection tool to compile the annual data on campus crime and fire safety. The data collected from the individual institutions by ED is made available to the public through the Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis and Cutting Tool as well as the College Navigator.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02141 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, March 1, 2018 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (CST)—Registration 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (CST)—Meeting Friday, March 2, 2018 8:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. (CST)—Registration 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (CST)—Meeting ADDRESSES:

    Hotel Galvez, Navigation Room, 2024 Seawall Blvd., Galveston, TX 77550.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lou Capitanio, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.

    Phone: (202) 586-5098.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee is to provide advice on potential applications of methane hydrate to the Secretary of Energy, and assist in developing recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy's Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program.

    Tentative Agenda: The agenda will include: Welcome and Introduction by the Designated Federal Officer; Committee Business including election of Committee Chair; Report of Committee Representatives Meeting with the Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy; Update on Methane Hydrate Major Projects; Review of International Activities; Update on Atlantic Margin Gas Hydrate Resources; Methane Hydrate Program Budget and FY 2018 Plans; Regulatory Reform; Advisory Committee Discussion; and Public Comments, if any.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Designated Federal Officer and the Chair of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Lou Capitanio at the phone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the three-minute rule.

    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the following website: https://energy.gov/fe/services/advisory-committees/methane-hydrate-advisory-committee.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on January 30, 2018. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02093 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-50-000] Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization; Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

    Take notice that on January 19, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and the blanket certificate issued by the Commission in Docket No. CP82-535-000 requesting authorization to relocate certain segments of two adjacent pipelines in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania as part of its Skippack Pike Relocation Project. The Skippack Pike Relocation Project will accommodate a planned expansion of Pennsylvania State Route 202 in Montgomery County by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Specifically, Texas Eastern proposes to relocate certain segments of its Line 1-B and Line 1-F pipelines, and to cut, cap and fill with grout certain portions of these pipelines. The total cost of the Skippack Pike Relocation Project is estimated to be approximately $12,600,000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Leanne Sidorkewicz, Manager, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 627-4515, by fax at (713) 627-5947, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after 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 and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), 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 filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time 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 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.

    Dated: January 26, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02142 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9037-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/22/2018 Through 01/26/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/actiom/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180009, Final, FHWA, CO, U.S. 50 Corridor East Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Under MAP-21, Section 1319, FHW has issued a single FEIS and ROD. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period does not apply to this action, Contact: Melinda Urban 720-963-3073. EIS No. 20180010, Final Supplement, USFS, MT, Forest Plan Supplemental EIS—Bighorn Sheep, Review Period Ends: 03/28/2018, Contact: Jan Bowey 406-683-3853. Dated: January 30, 2018. Kelly Knight, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02131 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Request AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection—extension without change: State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4 Report, Form 164).

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. All comments received through this portal will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide, except as noted below. The EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting comments, including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters Library, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments will be provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment, contact EEOC Library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benita Marsh, Director of Surveys, Office of Research, Information and Planning, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-7197 (voice) or by email at [email protected] Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB Regulations 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission'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 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.

    Overview of Current Information Collection

    Collection Title: State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4).

    OMB—Number: 3046-0008.

    Frequency of Report: Biennial.

    Type of Respondent: State and local government jurisdictions with 100 or more employees.

    Description of Affected Public: State and local governments excluding public elementary and secondary public school districts.

    Number of Respondents: 5,128 1 .

    1 This number represents the total number of state and local government respondents from the most recent reporting cycle in 2015.

    Number of Responses: 12,197 2 .

    2 This number represents the total number of reports filed during the 2015 reporting cycle; it is larger than the number of respondents due to the requirement for some state and local governments to file separate reports by function.

    Biennial Reporting Hours: 85,379.

    Biennial Cost to Respondents: $1,646,107.12.

    Federal Cost: $251,920.

    Number of Forms: 1.

    Form Number: EEOC FORM 164.

    Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, to preserve such records and to produce reports as the Commission prescribes by regulation or order. Accordingly, the EEOC issued regulations at 29 CFR 1602.32-1602.37 prescribing the reporting requirements for State and local governments. State and local governments with 100 or more employees have been required to submit EEO-4 reports since 1974 (biennially in odd-numbered years since 1993). The individual reports are confidential.

    EEO-4 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of discrimination against state and local governments and to provide information on the employment status of minorities and women. The data are shared with several other Federal agencies. Pursuant to section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S.C. 2000e-8(d), as amended, EEO-4 data are shared with State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). Aggregated data are also used by researchers and the general public.

    Burden Statement: The EEOC has updated its methodology for calculating biennial burden to reflect the time spent by staff that are responsible for preparing and filing the EEO-4 report. Based upon its years of experience and interactions with EEO-4 filers, the EEOC now accounts for time to be spent biennially on EEO-4 reporting by human resources assistants. The estimated number of respondents included in the biennial estimate is 5,128 state and local government respondents, as this is the number of EEO-4 filers from the 2015 reporting cycle. These 5,128 filers submit an estimated 12,197 reports biennially. The estimated hour burden per report will be 7 hours; this estimate is supported by information on hour burden collected from a sample of both small and large EEO-4 filers. The estimated total biennial respondent burden hours will be 85,379 hours. Burden hour cost was calculated using median hourly wage rates for human resources assistants.3 The burden hour cost per report will be $134.96, and the estimated total biennial burden hour cost will be $1,646,107.12. (See Table 1 below.)

    3 The rate of $19.28 per hour is based on the mean hourly pay rate of human resources assistants (Occupational Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2016, 43-4161 Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and Timekeeping, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes434161.htm, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Occupational Employment Statistics).

    Table 1—Estimate of Biennial Burden for EEO-4 Report State and local governments Hourly wage rate Hours per local govt.
  • report
  • Burden hour cost per
  • report 4
  • Total burden hours 5 Total burden hour cost 6
    Number of State and Local Government Respondents = 5,128 Number of Reports Submitted = 12,197 Human resources assistants $19.28 7 $134.96 85,379 $1,646,107.12 Total $19.28 7 $134.96 85,379 $1,646,107.12

    The cost estimates are based on the assumption that filers use online reporting. For the 2015 EEO-4 report, 85% of EEO-4 filers submitted their report via online reporting and 5% of EEO-4 reports were submitted using the data upload method. The remaining 10% of filers submitted reports via the paper method. The EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for employers required to file the EEO-4 Report. As a result, more jurisdictions are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to have significantly reduced the actual burden of reporting.

    4 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the hourly wage rate by the hours per report (7).

    5 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the hours per report by 12,197, the total number of responses.

    6 The figures in this column were calculated by multiplying the burden hour cost per report by 12,197, the total number of responses.

    Dated: January 25, 2018.

    For the Commission.

    Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02069 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 18-65] Consumer Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission announces the next meeting date, time, and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (hereinafter the “Committee”). The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers (including underserved populations, such as Native Americans, persons living in rural areas, older persons, people with disabilities, and persons for whom English is not their primary language) in proceedings before the Commission.

    DATES:

    February 26, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Commission Meeting Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, (202) 418-2809 (voice or Relay); email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 18-65, released January 25, 2018, announcing the Agenda, Date, and Time of the Committee's Next Meeting.

    Meeting Agenda

    At its February 26, 2018 meeting, the Committee is expected to consider a recommendation from its Robocalls Working Group regarding call authentication. The Committee will also receive briefings from Commission staff on issues of interest to the Committee.

    A limited amount of time will be available for comments from the public. If time permits, the public may ask questions of presenters via the email address [email protected] or via Twitter using the hashtag #fcclive. The public may also follow the meeting on Twitter @fcc or via the Commission's Facebook page at www.facebook.com/fcc. Alternatively, members of the public may send written comments to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, at the address provided above.

    The meeting is open to the public and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, assistive listening devices, and Braille copies of the agenda and committee roster will be provided on site. Meetings of the Committee are also broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at www.fcc.gov/live/. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. To request an accommodation, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Federal Communications Commission. Gregory Haledjian, Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02091 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10073, The Elizabeth State Bank, Elizabeth, Illinois

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for The Elizabeth State Bank, Elizabeth, Illinois, intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of The Elizabeth State Bank on July 2, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02079 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 1, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. SBH Manager, LLC, and Susser Bank Holdings, LLC, both of Corpus Christi, Texas; to become bank holding companies by acquiring up to 65.9 percent of the voting shares of BancAffiliated, Inc., Arlington, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire, Affiliated Bank, National Association, Arlington, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 30, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02123 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 23, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. The Lloyd A. Amundson 1999 Generational Trust, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Trustees, Angela R. Mixner, Worthington, Minnesota & Matt W. Amundson, Hendricks, Minnesota; the Barbara A. Amundson 1999 Generational Trust, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Trustees, Angela R. Mixner and Matt W. Amundson; and Jane A. Harberts, Rochester, Minnesota; to retain or acquire shares of First Sleepy Eye Bancorporation, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and thereby acquire/retain shares of First Security Bank of Sleepy Eye, Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, and First Security Bank of Canby, Canby, Minnesota.

    In addition, Philip G. Amundson, Sheridan, Wyoming, Krista B. Ryan, Byron, Minnesota; the B.A. Amundson Generational Trust fbo-Jane A. Harberts, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Trustees, Jane A. Harberts and Krista B. Ryan; and the B.A. Amundson Generational Trust fbo-Philip G. Amundson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Trustees, Angela R. Mixner and Matt W. Amundson, acting in concert, have applied to acquire shares of First Sleepy Eye Bancorporation, Inc.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 30, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02122 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-18-18FJ; Docket No. CDC-2018-0011] 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 the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Evaluation of the Chronic Disease Self-Management in the US Affiliated Pacific Islands. This project will assess participant satisfaction, health behavior, and overall health before and after a six-week Chronic Disease Self-Management workshop.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-00011 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. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all 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 the 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 the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program in the US Affiliated Pacific Islands—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    NCCDPHP plans to evaluate the first ever implementation of Stanford University's Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) in the US Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPIs). These jurisdictions include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

    The purpose of the evaluation is to understand how CDSMP is being implemented in the region, to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, to monitor fidelity to Stanford University's model and document adaptations to the curriculum, and to understand the self-reported effects of the program on program participants.

    Evaluating the implementation of CDSMP in the Pacific is important because there is a lack of evidence-based chronic disease prevention and management programs in the USAPIs. CDSMP has proven to improve health outcomes in many ethnic groups within the United States, however, we are unsure whether the same health outcomes will be achieved within the USAPIs. The data collected for this evaluation will help the CDC assess the effect of CDSMP on health outcomes in the USAPIs and to understand whether the CDSMP curriculum needs to be adapted to meet the cultural needs of the USAPIs and if it is feasible to expand the CDSMP program in the USAPIs.

    In this evaluation, program participants (people who are enrolled in six-week CDSMP workshops) will be asked to fill out the following voluntary surveys:

    Chronic Disease Self-Management Workshop Evaluation Form: This is a survey to assess program participant satisfaction with CDSMP. The survey will be administered once at the end of the six-week CDSMP workshop.

    Chronic Disease Self-Management Questionnaire: This is a pre- and post-test for program participants to assess chronic disease related symptoms and health behaviors before CDSMP and at the end of the six-week workshop. The survey will be administered once at the start of the six-week workshop and once at the end of the six-week workshop. The pre-test surveys and the post-test survey results will be compared.

    Program participants will voluntarily complete three surveys over the course of the six-week CDSMP workshop. We anticipate collecting surveys over a three-year period, or 36 months.

    The CDC will provide CDSMP leaders in the USAPIs with surveys. CDSMP leaders will administer the voluntary paper-based surveys to participants during the workshops, collect the surveys, and submit the surveys to the CDC.

    CDSMP leaders will store surveys in a locked cabinet only accessible to them. They will scan the survey in a secure location on a dedicated server only accessible to the CDSMP leader. The server will have a firewall. CDSMP leaders will encrypt and submit electronic copies of the survey to the CDC.

    CDC will maintain the surveys and abstracted data in secure location on a dedicated server only accessible by the evaluation staff, the program coordinator, and the program assistant. The server will have a firewall. Data will be aggregated and the aggregated data will be used and shared with stakeholders.

    Data will not be collected from participants electronically because computers and other electronic data collection methods will not be available at the six-week workshops.

    The information collection will involve approximately 190 respondents for a total cost of $19,501. The estimated cost to participants is $570. There are a total of three responses, or three surveys, per respondent. Each response will take 10 minutes to complete. The estimated time burden is 95 hours. We do not anticipate capital and start-up costs to respondents and record keepers. We expect an operation and maintenance cost for record keepers, who will print surveys and provide pens for program participants to fill out the survey, which will cost $11.40 for paper and $25 for pens.

    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)
  • Program Participant Chronic Disease Self-Management Workshop Evaluation 190 1 10/60 32 Program Participant Chronic Disease Self-Management Questionnaire (Pre-Post Test) 190 2 10/60 63 Total 95
    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. 2018-02134 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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) 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.

    Proposed Project: Networking Suicide Prevention Hotlines—Evaluation of Imminent Risk (OMB No. 0930-0333)—Revision

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) funds a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Network (“Lifeline”), consisting of a toll-free telephone number that routes calls from anywhere in the United States to a network of local crisis centers. In turn, the local centers link callers to local emergency, mental health, and social service resources. This project is a revision of the Evaluation of Imminent Risk and builds on previously approved data collection activities [Evaluation of Networking Suicide Prevention Hotlines Follow-Up Assessment (OMB No. 0930-0274) and Call Monitoring of National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Form (OMB No. 0930-0275)]. The extension data collection is an effort to advance the understanding of crisis hotline utilization and its impact.

    The overarching purpose of the proposed Evaluation of Imminent Risk data collection is to evaluate hotline counselors' management of imminent risk callers and third party callers concerned about persons at imminent risk, assess counselor adherence to the Lifeline Policies and Guidelines for Helping Callers at Imminent Risk of Suicide, and identify the types of interventions implemented with imminent risk callers. Specifically, the Evaluation of Imminent Risk will collect data, using the Imminent Risk Form-Revised, to inform the network's knowledge of the extent to which counselors are aware of and being guided by Lifeline's imminent risk guidelines; counselors' definitions of imminent risk; the rates of active rescue of imminent risk callers; the types of rescue and non-rescue interventions used; barriers to intervention; and the circumstances in which active rescue is initiated, including the caller's agreement to receive the intervention. To capture differences across centers, the form also collects information on counselors' employment status and hours worked/volunteered, level of education, license status, training status, source of safety planning protocols, and responsibility for follow up.

    Clearance is being requested for one activity to assess the knowledge, actions, and practices of counselors to aid callers who are determined to be at imminent risk for suicide and who may require active rescue. This evaluation will allow researchers to examine and understand the actions taken by counselors to aid imminent risk callers, the need for active rescue, the types of interventions used, and, ultimately, improve the delivery of crisis hotline services to imminent risk callers. A total of seven centers will participate in this evaluation. Thus, SAMHSA is requesting OMB review and approval of the Imminent Risk Form-Revised.

    Crisis counselors at seven participating centers will record information discussed with imminent risk callers on the Imminent Risk Form-Revised, which does not require direct data collection from callers. As with previously approved evaluations, callers will maintain anonymity. Participating counselors will be asked to complete the form for 100% of their imminent risk calls. At centers with high call volumes, data collection may be limited to designated shifts. This form requests information in 15 content areas, each with multiple sub-items and response options. Response options include open-ended, yes/no, Likert-type ratings, and multiple choice/check all that apply. The form also requests demographic information on the caller, the identification of the center and counselor submitting the form, and the date of the call. Specifically, the form is divided into the following sections: (1) Counselor information, (2) center information, (3) call characteristics (e.g., line called, language spoken, participation of third party), (4) suicidal desire, (5) suicidal intent, (6) suicidal capability, (7) buffers to suicide, (8) interventions agreed to by caller or implemented by counselor without caller's consent, (9) whether imminent risk was reduced enough such that active rescue was not needed, (10) interventions for third party callers calling about a person at imminent risk, (11) whether supervisory consultation occurred during or after the call, (12) barriers to getting needed help to the person at imminent risk, (13) steps taken to confirm whether emergency contact was made with person at risk, (14) outcome of attempts to rescue person at risk, and (15) outcome of attempts to follow-up on the case. The form also includes an Additional Counselor Training section that counselors complete only when applicable. This section includes one new question specifically related to the use of the Lifeline Simulation Training System. The form will take approximately 15 minutes to complete and will be completed by the counselor after the call. It is expected that a total of 440 forms will be completed by 116 counselors over the two-year data collection period.

    The estimated response burden to collect this information is annualized over the requested two-year clearance period and is presented below:

    Total and Annualized Burden: Respondents, Responses and Hours Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses/
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • National Suicide Prevention Lifeline—Imminent Risk Form-Revised 116 1.9 220 .26 57

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57B, Rockville, MD 20857 OR email a copy at [email protected] Written comments should be received by April 3, 2018.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02107 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N164; 91100-3740-GRNT 7C] Announcement of Public Meeting via Teleconference; North American Wetlands Conservation Council AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting/teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    The North American Wetlands Conservation Council will meet via teleconference to select U.S. small grant proposals for reporting to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This teleconference is open to the public, and interested persons may present oral or written statements.

    DATES:

    Teleconference: The teleconference is scheduled for February 22, 2018, at 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    Participation: Contact the Council Coordinator for the call-in information (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than February 14, 2018.

    Presenting Information During the Teleconference: If you are interested in presenting information, contact the Council Coordinator no later than February 14, 2018.

    Submitting Information: To submit written information or questions before the Council meeting for consideration during the meeting, contact the Council Coordinator no later than February 14, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Mott, Council Coordinator, by phone at 703-358-1784; by email at [email protected]; or by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike MS: MB, Falls Church, VA 22041. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 during normal business hours. Also, FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    About the Council

    In accordance with the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended; NAWCA), the State-private-Federal North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (Commission).

    North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants

    NAWCA provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA website at www.fws.gov/birds/grants/north-american-wetland-conservation-act.php.

    Public Input Submitting Written Information or Questions

    Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions to be considered during the teleconference. If you wish to submit a written statement so information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to the teleconference, you must contact the Council Coordinator by the date in DATES. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

    Giving an Oral Presentation

    Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation during the teleconference will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 10 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator by the date in DATES, in writing (preferably via email; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), to be placed on the public speaker list. Nonregistered public speakers will not be considered during the meeting. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, are invited to submit written statements to the Council within 30 days following the teleconference.

    Meeting Minutes

    Summary minutes of the Council teleconference will be maintained by the Council Coordinator at the address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Teleconference meeting notes will be available by contacting the Council Coordinator within 30 days following the teleconference. Personal copies may be purchased for the cost of duplication.

    Dated: January 26, 2018. Michael J. Johnson, Acting Assistant Director, Migratory Birds.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02113 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [XXXD5198NI DS61100000 DNINR0000.000000 DX61104] Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee; Call for Nominations AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council is soliciting nominations for the Public Advisory Committee to fill a membership vacancy that represents conservation and environmental interests. The Public Advisory Committee advises the Trustee Council on decisions related to the planning, evaluation, funds allocation, and conduct of injury assessment and restoration activities related to the T/V Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989. The Secretary of the Interior will select a Public Advisory Committee member to fill the vacancy and serve the remainder of a term which will end on December 2, 2018.

    DATES:

    All nominations must be received by March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    A complete nomination package should be submitted by hard copy to Elise Hsieh, Executive Director, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 4230 University Drive, Suite 220, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4650, or via email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions should be directed to Cherri Womac, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 4230 University Drive, Suite 220, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4650, 907-278-8012 or 800-478-7745 or via email at [email protected]; or Philip Johnson, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 C Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5126, 907-271-5011.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of United States of America v. State of Alaska, Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The Public Advisory Committee was created to advise the Trustee Council on matters relating to decisions on injury assessment, restoration activities, or other use of natural resource damage recoveries obtained by the government.

    The Trustee Council consists of representatives of the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and Alaska Department of Law. Appointment to the Public Advisory Council will be made by the Secretary of the Interior.

    The Public Advisory Committee consists of 10 members to reflect balanced representation from each of the following principal interests: Aquaculture/mariculture, commercial tourism, conservation/environmental, recreation, subsistence use, commercial fishing, public-at-large, native landownership, sport hunting/fishing, and science/technology. As stated above, the only vacancy at this time is for the conservationist/environmentalist.

    Nominations for membership may be submitted by any source. Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Public Advisory Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member.

    Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.

    Public availability of comments. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your nomination/comment, you should be aware that your entire nomination/comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your nomination/comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2

    Michaela E. Noble, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02138 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCA930000 L13400000.XM0000.18XL1109AF] Notice of Intent To Amend the California Desert Conservation Area, Bakersfield, and Bishop Resource Management Plans and Prepare Associated Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 14, 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Land Use Plan Amendment (DRECP), which amended the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, Bishop Resource Management Plan (RMP), and the Bakersfield RMP in the Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran Desert regions of southern California. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” which directs all Federal agencies to review all actions that could “potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.” To facilitate the BLM's review of the DRECP, including potential burdens on domestic renewable energy production in California, the BLM, by this notice, is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.

    DATES:

    This notice initiates the public scoping process for the potential plan amendments and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until March 19, 2018. The dates and locations of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM website at www.blm.gov/california/drecp. In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received prior to the close of the scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. We will provide additional opportunities for public participation upon publication of the Draft Plan Amendment and NEPA document.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria to the BLM-California State Director, 2800 Cottage Way, Rm W-1623, Sacramento, CA 95825 or electronically to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremiah Karuzas, Renewable Energy Lead, 916-978-4644, 2800 Cottage Way, Rm W-1623, Sacramento, CA 95825; email: [email protected] Documents relevant to this planning process can be found at the above address. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to reach the BLM contact person. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 29, 2011, the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a process to jointly prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the NEPA for the DRECP. After the BLM prepared an EIS, on September 14, 2016, it issued a DRECP ROD that amended the CDCA Plan, Bishop RMP, and Bakersfield RMP in the Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran Desert regions of southern California. The DRECP Planning Area covered approximately 22,587,000 acres of both Federal and non-Federal land—including portions of seven counties (Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego). The BLM manages approximately 10.8 million acres of the DRECP planning area.

    The BLM's DRECP makes available just over 800,000 acres (7%) of the 10.8 million acres of land potentially available for renewable energy development, of which 388,000 acres (4%) were designated as Development Focus Areas, considered to be areas with substantial renewable energy potential and low resource conflict. The ROD allocated a total of 6.5 million acres (60%) as conservation areas, to include California Desert National Conservation Lands, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, wildlife allocations, and National Scenic and Historic Trail corridors—which limit or are closed to renewable energy. The ROD also designated a little over 3.5 million acres (33%) as Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas—which the ROD states are also generally closed to renewable energy.

    As a result of concerns voiced by multiple parties throughout the public comment periods of the DRECP planning process, the BLM seeks additional comment on the DRECP ROD, including the renewable energy and conservation designations made through that decision. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an executive order that required that 33 percent of California's energy production be via renewable energy in 2020. In October 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed into law a measure which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2030. And, on March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” which directs all Federal agencies to review all actions that could “potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.” In recognition of these goals and direction, BLM seeks comment on the potential impacts that land use designations contained in the amended RMPs will have on commercial-scale renewable energy projects, including wind, solar and geothermal. In particular, the BLM seeks comment on the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that were designated, including where private lands lie within the external boundaries of such designations, as well as comments on increasing opportunities for increased renewable energy development, recreational and off-highway vehicle (OHV) access, mining access, and grazing.

    Finally, on January 8, 2018, the President signed an Executive Order on Streamlining and Expediting Requests to Locate Broadband Facilities in Rural America, which directs Federal agencies: “. . . to reduce barriers to capital investment, remove obstacles to broadband services, and more efficiently employ Government resources” in order to foster rural broadband infrastructure projects. Therefore, the BLM also seeks comment on the impact that land use designations, land disturbance limits (or “caps”), and visual management classifications contained in the amended RMPs may have on the deployment of future communications infrastructure.

    You may submit comments in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using the method listed in the ADDRESSES section. To be most helpful, you should submit comments by the close of the 45-day scoping period or within 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.

    The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.

    The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:

    1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;

    2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or

    3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.

    The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft Plan Amendment and NEPA document as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns. The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Jerome E. Perez, California State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02098 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-581 and 731-TA-1374-1376 (Final)] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-581 and 731-TA-1374-1376 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, provided for in subheadings 2918.14.00, 2918.15.10, 2918.15.50, 3824.99.92, and 3824.99.92 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.

    DATES:

    January 8, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amelia Shister (202-205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend.

    The scope also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate.

    The scope includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dehydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively.” 1

    1 For a complete presentation of Commerce's scope, see Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 787, January 8, 2018; Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Colombia: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 791, January 8, 2018; and Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Thailand: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 784, January 8, 2018.

    Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand of citric acid and certain citrate salts, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on June 2, 2017, by Archer Daniels Midland Company, Decatur, Illinois; Cargill, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, LLC, Hoffman Estates, Illinois.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Although the Department of Commerce has preliminarily determined that imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Thailand are not being and are not likely to be subsidized by the government not Thailand, for purposes of efficiency the Commission hereby waives rule 207.21(b) 2 so that the final phase of the investigation may proceed concurrently in the event that Commerce makes a final affirmative determination with respect to such imports.

    2 Section 207.21(b) of the Commission's rules provides that, where the Department of Commerce has issued a negative preliminary determination, the Commission will publish a Final Phase Notice of Scheduling upon receipt of an affirmative final determination from Commerce.

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on April 30, 2018, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, May 14, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before May 8, 2018. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on May 11, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is May 7, 2018. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is May 21, 2018. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before May 21, 2018. On June 13, 2018, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before June 15, 2018, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's website at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 29, 2018. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02073 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122-0016] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (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 submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision to Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-Annual Progress Report for Grantees of the Transitional Housing Assistance Grant Program.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0016. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 120 grantees of the Transitional Housing Assistance Grant Program (Transitional Housing Program) whose eligibility is determined by statute. This discretionary grant program provides transitional housing, short-term housing assistance, and related support services for individuals who are homeless, or in need of transitional housing or other housing assistance, as a result of fleeing a situation of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and for whom emergency shelter services or other crisis intervention services are unavailable or insufficient. Eligible applicants are States, units of local government, Indian tribal governments, and other organizations, including domestic violence and sexual assault victim services providers, domestic violence or sexual assault coalitions, other nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations, or community-based and culturally specific organizations, that have a documented history of effective work concerning domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the 120 respondents (grantees) approximately one hour to complete the Semi-Annual Progress Report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities that grantees may engage in and the different types of grantees that receive funds. A Transitional Housing Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 240 hours, that is 120 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02081 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122-0007] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (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 submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-Annual Progress Report for Grantees of the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0007. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 200 grantees of the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program (LAV Program) whose eligibility is determined by statute. In 1998, Congress appropriated funding to provide civil legal assistance to domestic violence victims through a set-aside under the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, Public Law 105-277. In the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 and again in 2005, Congress statutorily authorized the LAV Program. 34 U.S.C. 20121. The LAV Program is intended to increase the availability of legal assistance necessary to provide effective aid to victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault who are seeking relief in legal matters arising as a consequence of that abuse or violence. The LAV Program awards grants to law school legal clinics, legal aid or legal services programs, domestic violence victims' shelters, bar associations, sexual assault programs, private nonprofit entities, and Indian tribal governments. These grants are for providing direct legal services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking in matters arising from the abuse or violence and for providing enhanced training for lawyers representing these victims. The goal of the Program is to develop innovative, collaborative projects that provide quality representation to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 200 respondents (LAV Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities that grantees may engage in and the different types of grantees that receive funds. An LAV Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 400 hours, that is 200 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02080 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act, CERCLA and EPCRA

    On January 29, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Gibson Wine Co., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01900-AWI-SKO.

    This case involves claims for alleged violations of Sections 112(r)(1) and 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(1), (7), Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9603 (“CERCLA”), and Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 11004 (“EPCRA”), with respect to Gibson's winemaking facility (“Facility”) located in Sanger, California. The complaint sought injunctive relief and civil penalties stemming from the 2012 accidental release of anhydrous ammonia from the Facility's refrigeration system that resulted in the death of a worker. The settlement involves a civil penalty payment of $330,000, a reconfiguration of portions of the refrigeration process to reduce the risk of worker exposure in the event of an ammonia release, an upgrade to the refrigeration system from manual controls to a centralized computer control system programmed with automated warnings and shut-downs in the event of a release, and other injunctive relief geared towards reducing the risk of further releases at the Facility.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Gibson Wine Co., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-11058. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $11.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02041 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program Reporting Requirements ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the Information Collection Request (ICR) titled, “Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program Reporting Requirements.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all written comments received by April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Kristen Milstead by telephone at 202-693-3949, TTY 1-877-889-5627, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Strategic Investments, Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Program, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room, C-4518, Washington, DC 20210; by email: [email protected]; or by Fax 202-693-3890.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Milstead by telephone at 202-693-3949 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.

    ETA requires grantees to submit Quarterly Narrative Progress Reports with a narrative summary of the capacity building progress as identified by the grantee in their project work plan. Every fourth quarter, grantees submit an Annual Performance Report with standardized outcome measures that will include aggregate data for program participants for the following ten outcome measures: Unique participants served/enrolled; total number of participants who have completed a grant-funded program of study; total number still retained in their programs of study; total number retained in other education programs; total number of credit hours completed; total number of earned credentials; total number pursuing further education after program of study completion; total number employed after program of study completion; total number retained in employment after program of study completion; and the total number of those employed at enrollment who receive a wage increase post-enrollment.

    These reports help ETA gauge the effects of the TAACCCT grants, respond to inquiries about the progress and successes of the TAACCCT grants from Congress and other stakeholders, identify grantees that could serve as useful models, target technical assistance appropriately, and provide data for the national evaluation of the TAACCCT grants. ETA is seeking an extension for the collection of the final Annual Performance Report and the final Quarterly Narrative Progress Report from the fourth and final round of grants. Section 1872 of the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (Division B, Title I, Subtitle I of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5) (19 U.S.C 2372a), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, authorizes this information collection.

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

    Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB 1205-0489.

    Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.

    The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • 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.

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Type of Review: Extension without changes.

    Title of Collection: Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grant Reporting Requirements.

    Form: ETA 9159 and 9160.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0489.

    Affected Public: Private sector, not for profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 71 grantees.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 173,494.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 16 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,011 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Rosemary Lahasky, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administrations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02048 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.

    DATES:

    All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:

    1. Electronic Mail: [email protected] Include the docket number of the petition in the subject line of the message.

    2. Facsimile: 202-693-9441.

    3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452, Attention: Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Persons delivering documents are required to check in at the receptionist's desk in Suite 4E401. Individuals may inspect copies of the petition and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above.

    MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice), [email protected] (Email), or 202-693-9441 (Facsimile). [These are not toll-free numbers.]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

    I. Background

    Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:

    1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

    2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

    In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.

    II. Petitions for Modification

    Docket Number: M-2017-041-C.

    Petitioner: Rosebud Mining Company, 301 Market Street, Kittanning, Pennsylvania 16201.

    Mines: Cresson Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09308 and Madison Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09127, located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania; Barret Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09342, Knob Creek Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09394, Heilwood Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09407, Brush Valley Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09437, Lowry Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09287, Coral-Graceton Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09595 and Crooked Creek Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09972, located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania; Tusky Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 33-04509, located in Tuscarawas County, Ohio; Penfield Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09355 and Harmony Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09477, located in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania; Bergholz 7 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 33-04565, located in Jefferson County, Ohio; Mine 78, MSHA ID No. 36-09371, located in Somerset County, Pennsylvania; Vail Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 33-04645, located in Harrison County, Ohio; Darmac Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08135, Dutch Run Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08701, Parkwood Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08785, Logansport Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08841 and Long Run Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09468, located in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania; Kocjancic Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09436, located in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania;

    Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment).

    Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of Dell Laptop Computers or equivalent to maintain and troubleshoot the continuous miner proximity detection system in or inby the last open crosscut.

    The petitioner states that:

    (1) The laptops are required to troubleshoot and perform diagnostic tests on the proximity detection systems utilized by the continuous mining machines.

    (2) Problems with the proximity detection system on continuous mining machines requiring repair with a nonpermissible diagnostic laptop computer will occur in the last open crosscut.

    (3) The proposed petition will apply to nonpermissible Dell Laptop computers with 11.4v Li-ion rechargeable batteries and/or similar low-voltage or battery powered nonpermissible computers (diagnostic computer).

    (4) The diagnostic computer will be utilized as long as equivalent permissible equipment is not available.

    (5) Prior to use of the diagnostic computer, it will be inspected by a qualified person as specified in 30 CFR 75.153. The qualified person will examine the diagnostic computer to ensure that it is being maintained in safe operating condition. The examination result will be recorded in the weekly examination of electrical equipment book and will be made available to authorized representatives of the Secretary and the miners at the mine.

    (6) A qualified person as defined in existing 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of diagnostic computers in or inby the last open crosscut.

    (7) The diagnostic computer will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent methane is detected, the diagnostic computer will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.

    (8) Except for the time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions, coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in the equipment in order to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.

    (9) The diagnostic computer will not be used to test equipment until a visual inspection of the area is completed to determine that the area is in compliance with 30 CFR 75.403.

    (10) Personnel engaged in the use of the diagnostic computer will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with such diagnostic computer.

    (11) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order become final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager to ensure that the miners are aware of the stipulations contained in this petition. The procedure as required in 30 CFR 48.3 for approval of proposed revisions to already approved training plans will apply.

    The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative will provide a level of safety equal to or greater than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.

    Docket Number: M-2017-042-C.

    Petitioner: Cumberland Contura, LLC, Three Gateway Center, 401 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1500, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-1000.

    Mine: Cumberland Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-05018, located in Greene County, Pennsylvania.

    Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance), 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).

    Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternative method of compliance with respect to the length of cables identified in Schedule 2G 18.35.

    The petitioner states that:

    (1) This petition will apply only to trailing cables that supply 995-volt, three-phase, alternating current to continuous mining machine(s) and trailing cables that supply 575 volt, three phase, alternating current to loading machines, roof bolting machines, shuttle cars, and section ventilation fans. The trailing cables will have 90 °C insulation rating.

    (2) Extended length trailing cable used on shuttle cars will be three conductor round cable either Type G-GC, Type G, or Type G+GC. When a Type G-GC or Type G+GC round cable is used with wireless ground wire monitoring, the ground-check conductor will be connected as a ground conductor.

    (3) The maximum length of continuous mining machines, loaders, shuttle cars, roof bolters, and ventilation fan trailing cables will not exceed 1,000 feet.

    (4) The trailing cable for the 995-volt continuous mining machines will not be smaller than a No. 2 American Wire Gauge (AWG).

    (5) The trailing cables for the 575-volt loading machines will not be smaller than No. 2 AWG.

    (6) The trailing cables for the 575-volt roof bolters, shuttle cars, and ventilation fans will not be smaller than No. 4 AWG.

    (7) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 4 AWG trailing cables exceeding 600 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 500 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting No. 4 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (8) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units used to protect No. 4 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 500 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (9) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 3 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 600 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting No. 3 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (10) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, used to protect No. 3 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 600 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (11) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 1 AWG trailing cables exceeding 750 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 1,000 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting No. 1 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (12) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units used to protect No. 1 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 1,000 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (13) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 1/0 AWG trailing cables exceeding 800 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 1,250 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breakers as being suitable for protecting No. 1/0 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (14) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, used to protect No. 1/0 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 1,250 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (15) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 3 AWG trailing cables exceeding 900 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 2,000 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breakers as being suitable for protecting No. 3 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (16) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, used to protect No. 3 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 2,000 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (17) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 2 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 800 amperes. The setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting No. 2 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (18) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, used to protect No. 2 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 800 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (19) All circuit breakers used to protect No. 2/0 AWG trailing cables exceeding 850 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 1,500 amperes. The setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed and will have permanent, legible labels. The label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting No. 2/0 AWG cables and will be maintained.

    (20) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units used to protect No. 2/0 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at 1,500 amperes and this setting will be sealed.

    (21) All components that provide short-circuit protection will have a sufficient interruption rating in accordance with the maximum calculated fault currents available.

    (22) During each production day, persons designated by the operator will visually examine the trailing cables to ensure that the cables are in safe operating condition and that the instantaneous settings of the specially calibrated breakers do not have seals removed or tampered with and that they do not exceed the stipulated settings.

    (23) Any trailing cable that is not in safe operating condition will be removed from service immediately and repaired or replaced.

    (24) Each splice or repair in the trailing cables to the continuous mining machines, loaders, shuttle cars, roof bolters, and ventilation fans will be made in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of splice and repair materials. The splice or repair will comply with 30 CFR 75.603 and 75.604 requirements. The outer jacket of each splice or repair will be vulcanized with flame-resistant material or made with material that has been accepted by MSHA as flame-resistant.

    (25) Permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the cover(s) of the power center identifying the location of each sealed short-circuit protective device. These labels will warn miners not to change or alter these sealed short-circuit settings.

    (26) In the event mining methods or operating procedures cause or contribute to the damage of any trailing cable, the cable will be removed from service immediately and repaired or replaced. Also, additional precautions will be taken to ensure that haulage roads and trailing cable storage areas are situated to minimize contact of the trailing cable with continuous mining machines, loading machines, shuttle cars, roof bolters, and ventilation fans. Moreover, trailing cable anchors on the cable reel equipment will be of the permanent type that minimizes the tensile forces on the trailing cables.

    (27) Where the method of mining would require that trailing cables cross roadways or haulageways, the cables will be securely supported from the mine roof or a substantial bridge for equipment to pass over the cables will be used.

    (28) Excessive cable will be stored behind the anchor(s) on equipment that use cable reels to prevent cable overheating.

    (29) The petitioner's alternative method will not be implemented until all miners who have been designated to examine the integrity of seals, verify the short-circuit settings, and examine trailing cables for defects have received training.

    (30) The equipment listed in this petition will comply with all other applicable requirements of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the applicable requirements of 30 CFR part 75.

    (31) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager for the area in which the mine is located. These proposed revisions will specify task training for miners designated to examine the trailing cables for safe operating condition and verify that the short-circuit settings of the circuit interrupting devices that protect the affected trailing cables do not exceed the settings specified in this petition. The training will include the following:

    (a) The hazards of setting the circuit interrupting devices too high to adequately protect the trailing cables.

    (b) How to verify that the circuit interrupting devices protecting the trailing cables are properly set and maintained.

    (c) Mining and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage.

    (d) How to protect the trailing cables against damage caused by overheating cables due to excessive cable stored on cable reel(s) and adjusting stored cable behind the cable anchor(s) as tramming distances change.

    (e) Proper procedures for examining the trailing cables to ensure that cables are in safe operating condition by a visual inspection of the entire cable, observing the insulation, the integrity of splices, and nicks and abrasions.

    The petitioner asserts that a decision in favor of this petition will in no way provide less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.

    Docket Number: M-2018-001-M.

    Petitioner: Martin Marietta Kansas City, LLC, 1099 18th Street, Suite 2150, Denver, Colorado 80202.

    Mine: Randolph Deep Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 23-02308, located in Clay County, Missouri; Stamper Underground Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 23-02232 and Parkville Quarry, MSHA I.D. No. 23-01883, located in Platte County, Missouri.

    Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 49.6(a)(1) (Equipment and maintenance requirements).

    Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the maintenance of a minimum of six approved self-contained breathing apparatus at its mine rescue station in lieu of twelve self-contained breathing apparatus. The petitioner proposes to maintain a mine rescue station with a minimum of six approved self-contained breathing apparatus and all equipment identified in 30 CFR 49(a)(2) through (a)(9). This station would contain sufficient equipment to equip one mine rescue team.

    The petitioner states that:

    (1) The Randolph Deep Mine is an underground limestone mine with active workings accessed from the surface via twin declines, located adjacent to one another and each 6750 feet long. It is a room and pillar mine with multiple openings to active mining areas.

    (2) The Stamper Underground Mine is an underground limestone mine with active workings accessed from the surface via two separate adits or entries; a decline for foot and vehicular traffic that is 1800 feet long and a single escape shaft, which is 350 feet in depth and equipped with a hoist for emergency evacuation. It is a room and pillar mine with multiple openings to active mining areas.

    (3) The Parkville Quarry is an underground limestone mine with active workings accessed from the surface via three separate adits or entries; a 900 feet long decline for foot and vehicular traffic and two shafts equipped with ladders for emergency evacuation. Shaft No. 1 is 145 feet deep and Shaft No. 2 is 190 feet deep. It is a room and pillar mine with multiple openings to active mining areas.

    (4) The petitioner has established a single mine rescue team to serve as the primary mine rescue team for all three of the mine sites. The mine rescue team consists of seven qualified and trained members.

    (5) The petitioner has entered into an agreement with Central Plains Cement Company (“Central Plains”) whereby Central Plains agrees to provide mine rescue services by the Sugar Creek Mine Rescue Team as needed to petitioner. Central Plains is controlled by Eagle Materials, Inc. Similarly, petitioner has agreed to provide mine rescue services as needed to Central Plains.

    (6) The petitioner has a mine rescue station located at the Randolph Deep Mine which previously contained equipment sufficient only to supply one mine rescue team. Both the Stamper Underground Mine and the Parkville Quarry are within thirty minutes or less of ground travel time from the Randolph Deep mine. Sugar Creek had its own mine rescue station located within fifteen minutes of ground travel time from the Randolph mine. The Sugar Creek mine rescue station initially contained equipment sufficient to equip one mine rescue team. As of December 20, 2017, petitioner has relocated certain mine rescue team equipment, including six self-contained breathing apparatus, gas monitors, cap lamps, and oxygen bottles to the Sugar Creek Mine rescue station to ensure that the combined mine rescue station is in compliance with 30 CFR 49.6(a).

    (7) Pursuant to the mine rescue services arrangement between petitioner and Central Plains, there will always be two mine rescue teams available whenever miners are underground and a minimum of twelve approved self-contained breathing apparatus available for a mine emergency. When maintained in the individual mine rescue stations, the apparatus could be used immediately or transported to another mine within a maximum forty-five minutes ground travel time.

    (8) The Petitioner proposes the following for its mine rescue station:

    (a) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus: The mine rescue station will be equipped with a minimum of six self-contained breathing apparatus, each with a minimum of four hours capacity (approved by MSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under 42 CFR part 84, subpart H), and any necessary equipment for testing such apparatus.

    (b) The mine operator will maintain a mine rescue station provided with all equipment identified in 30 CFR 49.6(a)(2) through (a)(9).

    The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the existing standard.

    Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02071 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (18-005)] NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    Thursday, March 1, 2018, 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., Central Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Building 4220, Room 1103, Huntsville, Alabama 35812.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Evette Whatley, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4733, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its First Quarterly Meeting for 2018. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:

    • Updates on the Exploration Systems Development • Updates on the Commercial Crew Program • Updates on the International Space Station Program

    The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. This meeting is also available telephonically. Any interested person may dial call the USA toll free conference call number (800) 857-7040; pass code 4167450 and then the # sign. Attendees will be required to sign a visitor's register and to comply with NASA Marshall Space Flight Center security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID and a secondary form of ID, before receiving an access badge. All U.S. citizens desiring to attend the ASAP meeting at the Marshall Space Flight Center must provide their full name, company affiliation (if applicable), driver's license number and state, citizenship, social security number; place of birth, and date of birth to the Marshall Space Flight Center Protective Services and Export Control Office no later than close of business on February 26, 2018. All non-U.S. citizens must submit their name; current address; driver's license number and state (if applicable); citizenship; company affiliation (if applicable) to include address, telephone number, and title; place of birth; date of birth; U.S. visa information to include type, number, and expiration date; U.S. social security number (if applicable); Permanent Resident (green card holder) number and expiration date (if applicable); place and date of entry into the U.S.; and passport information to include country of issue, number, and expiration date to the Marshall Space Flight Center Protective Services and Export Control Office no later than close of business on February 8, 2018. If the above information is not received by the noted dates, attendees should expect a minimum delay of four (4) hours. All visitors to this meeting will be required to process in through the Redstone/Marshall Space Flight Center Joint Visitor Control Center located on Rideout Road, north of Gate 9, prior to entering Marshall Space Flight Center. Please provide the appropriate data, via fax at (256) 544-2101, noting at the top of the page “Public Admission to the ASAP Meeting at MSFC.” For security questions, please call Ms. Becky Hopson at (256) 544-4541. At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5 minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Evette Whatley at [email protected] or at (202) 358-4733 at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Carol J. Hamilton, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02110 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION OF THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Institute of Museum and Library Services Sunshine Act Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board AGENCY:

    Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), NFAH.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Museum and Library Services Board, which advises the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services in awarding national awards and medals, will meet by teleconference on February 15, 2018, to review nominations for the 2017 National Medals for Museum and Library Service.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, February 15, at 1:30 p.m. EST.

    PLACE:

    The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the IMLS Offices, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024.

    STATUS:

    Closed. This meeting will be closed pursuant to subsections (c)(4) and (c)(9) of subsection 552b of Title 5, United States Code because the Board will consider information that may disclose: Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Maas, Program Specialist, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Suite 4000, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 653-4798. Please provide advance notice of any special needs or accommodations.

    Dated: January 31, 2018. Danette Hensley, Staff Assistant.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02212 Filed 1-31-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Large Scale Networking (LSN)—Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination (MAGIC) Team AGENCY:

    The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The MAGIC Team, established in 2002, provides a forum for information sharing among Federal agencies and non-Federal participants with interests and responsibility for middleware, Grid, and cloud projects. The MAGIC Team reports to the Large Scale Networking (LSN) Interagency Working Group (IWG). The agendas, minutes, and other meeting materials and information can be found on the MAGIC website at: https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Middleware_And_Grid_Interagency_Coordination (MAGIC).

    DATES:

    The MAGIC Team meetings are held on the first Wednesday of each month (February 2018-December 2018), noon-2:00 p.m. Eastern time, at the NITRD National Coordination Office, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8001, Washington, DC 20024. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the MAGIC Team website for updates. Further information about the NITRD may be found at: http://www.nitrd.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Joyce Lee at [email protected] or (202) 459-9674.

    Public Comments: The government seeks individual input; attendees/participants may provide individual advice only. Members of the public are welcome to submit their comments to [email protected] Please note that under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and may be made available to the public via the MAGIC Team website.

    Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on January 30, 2018.

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02100 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Large Scale Networking (LSN)—Joint Engineering Team (JET) AGENCY:

    The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The JET, established in 1997, provides for information sharing among Federal agencies and non-Federal participants with interest in high performance research networking and networking to support science applications. The JET reports to the Large Scale Networking (LSN) Interagency Working Group (IWG).

    DATES:

    The JET meetings are held on the third Tuesday of each month (February 2018-December 2018), noon-2:00 p.m. Eastern time, at the NITRD National Coordination Office, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8001, Washington, DC 20024. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the JET website for updates. Further information about the NITRD may be found at: http://www.nitrd.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Joyce Lee at [email protected] or (202) 459-9674.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comments: The government seeks individual input; attendees/participants may provide individual advice only. Members of the public are welcome to submit their comments to [email protected] Please note that under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), all public comments and/or presentations will be treated as public documents and may be made available to the public via the JET website. The agendas, minutes, and other meeting materials and information also can be found on the JET website at: https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Joint_Engineering_Team_(JET).

    Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on January 30, 2018.

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02101 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes; Call for Nominations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Call for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is advertising for nominations for the position of Radiation Oncologist (Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery) on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). Nominees should currently be practicing radiation oncology to include clinical use of the Gamma Knife® unit.

    DATES:

    Nominations are due on or before April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit an electronic copy of resume or curriculum vitae, along with a cover letter, to Ms. Sophie Holiday, [email protected] The cover letter should describe the nominee's current duties and responsibilities and express the nominee's interest in the position. Please ensure that resume or curriculum vitae includes the following information, if applicable: Education; certification; professional association membership and committee membership activities; duties and responsibilities in current and previous clinical, research, and/or academic position(s).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sophie Holiday, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguard; (301) 415-7865; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The ACMUI Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery (GSR) radiation oncologist provides advice on issues associated with radiation oncology and the clinical use of GSR. This advice includes providing input on NRC proposed rules and guidance documents, providing recommendations on the training and experience requirements for physicians specializing in this use, identifying medical events associated with this use, evaluating new models of GSR units, bringing key issues in the radiation oncology community to the attention of the NRC staff, and other radiation oncology issues as they relate to radiation safety and the NRC medical-use policy.

    ACMUI members are selected based on their educational background, certification(s), work experience, involvement and/or leadership in professional society activities, and other information obtained in letters or during the selection process.

    ACMUI members possess the medical and technical skills needed to address evolving issues. The current membership is composed of the following professionals: (a) Nuclear medicine physician; (b) nuclear cardiologist; (c) two radiation oncologists; (d) diagnostic radiologist; (e) therapy medical physicist; (f) nuclear medicine physicist; (g) nuclear pharmacist; (h) health care administrator; (i) radiation safety officer; (j) patients' rights advocate; (k) Food and Drug Administration representative; and (l) Agreement State representative.

    The NRC is inviting nominations for the GSR radiation oncologist to the ACMUI. The term of the individual currently occupying this position will end October 17, 2018. ACMUI members currently serve a four-year term and may be considered for reappointment to an additional term.

    Nominees must be U.S. citizens and be able to devote approximately 160 hours per year to ACMUI business. Members who are not Federal employees are compensated for their service. In addition, members are reimbursed for travel (including per-diem in lieu of subsistence) and are reimbursed secretarial and correspondence expenses. Full-time Federal employees are reimbursed travel expenses only.

    Security Background Check: The selected nominee will undergo a thorough security background check. Security paperwork may take the nominee several weeks to complete. Nominees will also be required to complete a financial disclosure statement to avoid conflicts of interest.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Russell E. Chazell, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02072 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-16; NRC-2016-0177] North Anna Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the renewal of NRC special nuclear materials (SNM) license SNM-2507 for the continued operation of the North Anna Power Station's (NAPS) specifically licensed independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in Louisa County, Virginia. The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this proposed license renewal in accordance with its regulations in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The NRC is also conducting a safety evaluation of the proposed license renewal.

    DATES:

    The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on February 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0177 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0177. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jean Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0867, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering the renewal of license SNM-2507 for Virginia Electric and Power Company and the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's (collectively referred to as Dominion) NAPS specifically licensed ISFSI located in Louisa County, Virginia (ADAMS Accession No. ML16153A140) for an additional 40 years. License SNM-2507 allows Dominion to store spent nuclear fuel from NAPS Units 1 and 2 in the specifically licensed ISFSI. The current license will expire on June 30, 2018. If approved, Dominion would be able to continue to possess, store and continue to load and place casks with spent nuclear fuel at the NAPS specifically-licensed ISFSI in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.”

    The NRC staff has prepared a final EA as part of its review of this proposed license renewal in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the final EA, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for this proposed action and a FONSI is appropriate. The NRC is also conducting a safety evaluation of the proposed license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR part 72 and the results will be documented in a separate safety evaluation report (SER). If Dominion's request is approved, the NRC will issue the license renewal and publish a separate notice of issuance in the Federal Register.

    In 1998, the NRC issued a 20-year license to Dominion to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel generated at the NAPS Units 1 and 2 to a specifically licensed ISFSI located on the NAPS site. License SNM-2507 allows Dominion to store 84 Transnuclear-32 (TN-32) sealed surface storage casks (TN-32 casks) on three pads (i.e., 28 TN-32 casks per pad). Each TN-32 cask is designed to hold 32 pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel assemblies (NRC, 1997). Prior to issuance of the license, the NRC prepared a final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML123480192) and determined that the construction and operation of the ISFSI would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. That FONSI was published on April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16202).

    In addition, the NRC recently approved a license amendment request (ADAMS Accession No. ML17234A539) from Dominion to place one cask (the 28th and final cask to be placed on Pad 1 of the specifically licensed ISFSI) with high burnup spent nuclear fuel (i.e., spent fuel with burnup greater than 45,000 MWD/MTU) in a Modified TN-32B High Burn-up Cask (TN-32B HBU) on this specifically licensed ISFSI to support the High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project. The NRC staff's EA in support of that license amendment request was published in June 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16168A104). On November 30, 2017, Dominion placed in service the TN-32B HBU cask with high burnup fuel in Pad 1 of the specifically licensed ISFSI. Currently, the specifically licensed ISFSI consists of one pad (Pad 1) with 28 spent fuel storage casks, the 28th of which is TN-32B HBU.

    The Dominion ISFSI is located in rural Louisa County, Virginia, approximately 64 kilometers (km) [40 miles (mi)] northwest of Richmond, Virginia and approximately 35 km (22 mi) southwest of Fredericksburg, Virginia. The NAPS site is located approximately 10 km (6 mi) northeast of the town of Mineral, Virginia.

    On May 25, 2016, the licensee submitted their application for a 40-year license renewal of the NAPS specifically licensed ISFSI (ADAMS Accession No. ML16153A140).

    II. Final Environmental Assessment Summary

    Dominion is requesting to renew its specifically licensed ISFSI for an additional 40 year-period. The current license will expire on June 30, 2018. Specifically, if approved Dominion would be able to continue to possess, store and to load and place casks with spent nuclear fuel from NAPS Units 1 and 2 at the NAPS specifically licensed ISFSI in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 72. In accordance with license SNM-2507, Dominion uses the TN-32 casks and a TN-32B HBU cask.

    The NRC has assessed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action; and alternatives to the proposed action including renewing the license for a 20 year-period, and the no-action alternative. The results of the NRC's environmental review can be found in the final EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML17311A450). The NRC staff performed its environmental review in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. In conducting the environmental review, the NRC considered information in the license renewal application (ADAMS Accession No. ML16153A140); information in the responses to the NRC's requests for additional information (ADAMS Accession No. ML17025A128); communications and consultation with the Pamunkey Indian Tribe, Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Virginia Department of Health.

    Approval of Dominion's proposed license renewal would allow the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel for an additional 40 years. In addition, the casks would be subject to NRC's review and oversight to ensure the casks are designed and maintained in accordance with the regulatory limits in 10 CFR parts 20 and 72. Furthermore, Dominion maintains a radiation protection program for NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the specifically licensed ISFSI in accordance with 10 CFR part 20 to ensure that radiation doses are as low as is reasonably achievable. Accordingly, no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts are expected to result from approval of the license renewal request, and the proposed action would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts at the NAPS site. Additionally, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations.

    In its license renewal request, Dominion is proposing no changes in how it handles or stores spent fuel at the NAPS specifically licensed ISFSI. Approval of the proposed action would not result in any new construction or expansion of the existing ISFSI footprint beyond that previously approved. The ISFSI is a passive facility that produces no liquid or gaseous effluents. No significant radiological or nonradiological impacts are expected from continued normal operations. Occupational dose estimates associated with the proposed action and continued normal operation and maintenance of the ISFSI are expected to be at as low as reasonably achievable levels and within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, preparation of an EIS is not required for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, a FONSI is appropriate.

    Furthermore, the NRC staff determined that this license renewal request does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming those were present; therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NRC staff, however, reached out to and informed the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer and the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia of its determination via letters dated October 18, 2016, and October 26, 2016, respectively (ADAMS Accession Nos: ML16279A432 and ML16279A419, respectively). The Virginia Department of Historic Resources responded via letter dated December 30, 2016, that based on information provided they concurred that the undertaking will not impact historic properties (ADAMS Accession No. ML16365A205). The Pamunkey Tribe responded via email dated November 11, 2016, that they were not aware of any historic or cultural resources that would be affected and requested NRC to contact them if potential cultural sites are identified (ADAMS Accession No. ML16313A325).

    Finally, the NRC staff also consulted with the FWS in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff used FWS Virginia Field Office's Ecological Services online project review process. The NRC completed the certification process by submitting the online review package to the FWS Virginia Field Office via letter dated October 18, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16279A448).

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the proposed license renewal for the Dominion's SNM License Number SNM-2507 for the operation of NAPS specifically licensed ISFSI located in Louisa County, Virginia, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, that preparation of an EIS is not required for the proposed action and a FONSI is appropriate.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Craig G. Erlanger, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02111 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on February 7, 2018, 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B3, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, February 7, 2018-12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2017 (82 FR 46312).

    Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown at 301-415-6207 to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: January 26, 2018. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02068 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82600; File No. SR-MRX-2018-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules January 30, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 24, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to a proposal to [sic] relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance rules (“CAT Rules”), currently under Chapter 9, Rules 900 through 912, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 in the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure.3

    3 Recently, the Exchange added a shell structure to its Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“Affiliated Exchanges”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82172 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57495 (December 5, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-26).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the CAT Rules, currently under Chapter 9, Rules 900 through 912, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 of the Rulebook's shell structure.

    The Exchange adopted the CAT Rules to implement a consolidated audit trail in order to capture customer and order event information to comply with the provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.4 Because the CAT Rules apply across all markets and to all products,5 the Exchange believes it is pertinent that they be located in the General section of the Rulebook's shell; therefore, the Exchange will amend the shell structure, creating a new “General 7 Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance” title under “General Rules,” and make conforming changes to the “Options Rules” titles; moreover, this proposal is consistent with similar filings concurrently submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-ISEMercury-2017-03) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules).

    The Exchange notes that, at the time of the approval of the CAT Rules, the Exchange was known as “ISE Mercury, LLC.” To reflect the Exchange's placement within its parent company's corporate structure, Nasdaq, Inc., the Exchange name was changed to “Nasdaq MRX, LLC.” See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80326 (March 29, 2017), 82 FR 16460 (April 4, 2017) (SR-ISEMercury-2017-05).

    5Id.

    The relocation of the CAT Rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges.6 The Exchange believes that the migration of the CAT Rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members 7 of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers, make cross-reference changes, and make changes to harmonize the proposed rule with the text of filings simultaneously submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.8

    6See footnote 3.

    7 Exchange Rule 100(a)(28).

    8 Specifically, the Exchange will remove the word “Rule” from General 7's title which will now read “Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance.”

    Moreover, the Exchange will update the description provided under General 7, Section 12(a), “General,” to exactly match the contents of similar sections in the Nasdaq, BX, and Phlx rulebooks. This change will not alter Section 12(a) since (i) the description under this subsection is essentially the same to that of the aforementioned Affiliated Exchanges and (ii) the removal of the phrase “upon approval by the Commission” is unnecessary at this point since the CAT Rules are already effective.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by promoting efficiency and conformity of the Exchange's processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its Members. The Exchange believes that the relocation of the CAT Rules and cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive nature.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules across the Affiliated Exchanges.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.12

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 14 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can reorganize its Rulebook as already approved by the Commission. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.15

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-MRX-2018-03 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-03. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-03 and should be submitted on or before February 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02128 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Supplier Diversity Business Management System, SEC File No. 270-663, OMB Control No. 3235-0724

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the existing collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for approval.

    The Commission is required under Section 342 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street and Reform Act to develop standards and processes for ensuring the fair inclusion of women-owned and minority-owned businesses in all of the Commission's business activities. To help implement this requirement, the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) developed and maintains an electronic Supplier Diversity Business Management System (the System) to collect up-to-date business information and capabilities statements from diverse suppliers interested in doing business with the Commission. This information allows the Commission to update and more effectively manage its current internal repository. It also allows the Commission to measure the effectiveness of its technical assistance and outreach efforts, and target areas where additional program efforts are necessary.

    The Commission invites comment on the System. Information is collected in the System via web-based, e-filed, dynamic form-based technology. The company point of contact completes a profile consisting of basic contact data and information on the capabilities of the business. The profile includes a series of questions, some of which are based on the data that the individual enters. Drop-down lists are included where appropriate to increase ease of use.

    The information collection is voluntary. There are no costs associated with this collection. The public interface to the System is available via a web-link provided by the agency.

    Estimated number of annual responses = 300.

    Estimated annual reporting burden = 150 hours (30 minutes per submission).

    Since the last approval of this information collection, we have adjusted the estimated number of respondents from 500 to 300 respondents per year, based on the actual response rate for the past two years and anticipated increase in that response rate with the posting of a link to the System on our web page to allow self-registration. This reduction in the number of respondents has resulted in a 100-hour reduction in the total burden estimate.

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]

    January 30, 2018. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02116 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82598; File No. SR-GEMX-2018-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules January 30, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 24, 2018, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance rules (“CAT Rules”), currently under Chapter 9, Rules 900 through 912, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 in the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure.3

    3 Recently, the Exchange added a shell structure to its Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Affiliated Exchanges”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82171 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57516 (December 5, 2017) (SR-GEMX-2017-54).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the CAT Rules, currently under Chapter 9, Rules 900 through 912, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 of the Rulebook's shell structure.

    The Exchange adopted the CAT Rules to implement a consolidated audit trail in order to capture customer and order event information to comply with the provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.4 Because the CAT Rules apply across all markets and to all products,5 the Exchange believes it is pertinent that they be located in the General section of the Rulebook's shell; therefore, the Exchange will amend the shell structure, creating a new “General 7 Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance” title under “General Rules,” and make conforming changes to the “Options Rules” titles; moreover, this proposal is consistent with similar filings concurrently submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2017-04) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules).

    The Exchange also notes that, at the time of the approval of the CAT Rules, the Exchange was known as “ISE Gemini, LLC.” To reflect the Exchange's placement within its parent company's corporate structure, Nasdaq, Inc., the Exchange name was changed to “Nasdaq GEMX, LLC.” See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80248 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (March 21, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2017-13).

    5Id.

    The relocation of the CAT Rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges.6 The Exchange believes that the migration of the CAT Rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members 7 of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers, make cross-reference changes, and make changes to harmonize the proposed rule with the text of filings simultaneously submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.8

    6See footnote 3.

    7 Exchange Rule 100(a)(28).

    8 Specifically, the Exchange will remove the word “Rule” from General 7's title which will now read “Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance.”

    Moreover, the Exchange will update the description provided under General 7, Section 12(a), “General,” to exactly match the contents of similar sections in the Nasdaq, BX, and Phlx rulebooks. This change will not alter Section 12(a) since (i) the description under this subsection is essentially the same to that of the aforementioned Affiliated Exchanges and (ii) the removal of the phrase “upon approval by the Commission” is unnecessary at this point since the CAT Rules are already effective.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by promoting efficiency and conformity of the Exchange's processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its Members. The Exchange believes that the relocation of the CAT Rules and cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive nature.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules across the Affiliated Exchanges.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b 4 thereunder.12

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 14 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can reorganize its Rulebook as already approved by the Commission. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.15

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-GEMX-2018-02 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-02. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-02 and should be submitted on or before February 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02126 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 12d1-1, SEC File No. 270-526, OMB Control No. 3235-0584

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

    An investment company (“fund”) is generally limited in the amount of securities the fund (“acquiring fund”) can acquire from another fund (“acquired fund”). Section 12(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act” or “Act”) 1 provides that a registered fund (and companies it controls) cannot:

    1See 15 U.S.C. 80a.

    • Acquire more than three percent of another fund's securities;

    • invest more than five percent of its own assets in another fund; or

    • invest more than ten percent of its own assets in other funds in the aggregate.2

    2See 15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(1)(A). If an acquiring fund is not registered, these limitations apply only with respect to the acquiring fund's acquisition of registered funds.

    In addition, a registered open-end fund, its principal underwriter, and any registered broker or dealer cannot sell that fund's shares to another fund if, as a result:

    • The acquiring fund (and any companies it controls) owns more than three percent of the acquired fund's stock; or

    • all acquiring funds (and companies they control) in the aggregate own more than ten percent of the acquired fund's stock.3

    3See 15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(1)(B).

    Rule 12d1-1 under the Act provides an exemption from these limitations for “cash sweep” arrangements in which a fund invests all or a portion of its available cash in a money market fund rather than directly in short-term instruments.4 An acquiring fund relying on the exemption may not pay a sales load, distribution fee, or service fee on acquired fund shares, or if it does, the acquiring fund's investment adviser must waive a sufficient amount of its advisory fee to offset the cost of the loads or distribution fees.5 The acquired fund may be a fund in the same fund complex or in a different fund complex. In addition to providing an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act, the rule provides exemptions from section 17(a) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder, which restrict a fund's ability to enter into transactions and joint arrangements with affiliated persons.6 These provisions would otherwise prohibit an acquiring fund from investing in a money market fund in the same fund complex,7 and prohibit a fund that acquires five percent or more of the securities of a money market fund in another fund complex from making any additional investments in the money market fund.8

    4See 17 CFR 270.12d1-1.

    5See rule 12d1-1(b)(1).

    6See 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a), 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d); 17 CFR 270.17d-1.

    7 An affiliated person of a fund includes any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such other person. See 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(3) (definition of “affiliated person”). Most funds today are organized by an investment adviser that advises or provides administrative services to other funds in the same complex. Funds in a fund complex are generally under common control of an investment adviser or other person exercising a controlling influence over the management or policies of the funds. See 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(9) (definition of “control”). Not all advisers control funds they advise. The determination of whether a fund is under the control of its adviser, officers, or directors depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances. See Investment Company Mergers, Investment Company Act Release No. 25259 (Nov. 8, 2001) [66 FR 57602 (Nov. 15, 2001)], at n.11. To the extent that an acquiring fund in a fund complex is under common control with a money market fund in the same complex, the funds would rely on the rule's exemptions from section 17(a) and rule 17d-1.

    8See 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(3)(A), (B).

    The rule also permits a registered fund to rely on the exemption to invest in an unregistered money market fund that limits its investments to those in which a registered money market fund may invest under rule 2a-7 under the Act, and undertakes to comply with all the other provisions of rule 2a-7.9 In addition, the acquiring fund must reasonably believe that the unregistered money market fund (i) operates in compliance with rule 2a-7, (ii) complies with sections 17(a), (d), (e), 18, and 22(e) of the Act 10 as if it were a registered open-end fund, (iii) has adopted procedures designed to ensure that it complies with these statutory provisions, (iv) maintains the records required by rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 31a-1(b)(2)(iv), and 31a-1(b)(9); 11 and (v) preserves permanently, the first two years in an easily accessible place, all books and records required to be made under these rules.

    9See 17 CFR 270.2a-7.

    10See 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a), 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d), 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(e), 15 U.S.C. 80a-18, 15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e).

    11See 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(1), 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(2)(iv), 17 CFR 270.31a-1(b)(9).

    Rule 2a-7 contains certain collection of information requirements. An unregistered money market fund that complies with rule 2a-7 would be subject to these collection of information requirements. In addition, the recordkeeping requirements under rule 31a-1 with which the acquiring fund reasonably believes the unregistered money market fund complies are collections of information for the unregistered money market fund. The adoption of procedures by unregistered money market funds to ensure that they comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), 18, and 22(e) of the Act also constitute collections of information. By allowing funds to invest in registered and unregistered money market funds, rule 12d1-1 is intended to provide funds greater options for cash management. In order for a registered fund to rely on the exemption to invest in an unregistered money market fund, the unregistered money market fund must comply with certain collection of information requirements for registered money market funds. These requirements are intended to ensure that the unregistered money market fund has established procedures for collecting the information necessary to make adequate credit reviews of securities in its portfolio, as well as other recordkeeping requirements that will assist the acquiring fund in overseeing the unregistered money market fund (and Commission staff in its examination of the unregistered money market fund's adviser).

    The number of unregistered money market funds that are affected by rule 12d1-1 is an estimate based on the number of private liquidity funds reported on Form PF as of the fourth calendar quarter 2016.12 The hour burden estimates for the condition that an unregistered money market fund comply with rule 2a-7 are based on the burden hours included in the Commission's 2013 PRA submission regarding rule 2a-7.13 The estimated average burden hours in this collection of information are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a quantitative, comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the burdens associated with Commission rules and forms.

    12See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Annual Staff Report Relating to the Use of Form PF Data, Private Fund Statistics, Fourth Calendar Quarter 2016, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/im-private-fund-annual-report-101617.pdf.

    13See Securities and Exchange Commission, Request for OMB Approval of Extension for Approved Collection for Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (OMB Control No. 3235-0268) (approved Aug. 28, 2013). This was the most recent rule 2a-7 submission that includes certain estimates with respect to aggregate annual hour and cost burdens for collections of information for each existing registered money market fund, fund complexes with registered money market funds, registered money market funds that experience an event of default or insolvency, and newly registered money market funds.

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff made the following estimates with respect to aggregate annual hour and cost burdens for collections of information for each existing registered money market fund:

    Record of credit risk analyses, and determinations regarding adjustable rate securities, asset backed securities, securities subject to a demand feature or guarantee, and counterparties to repurchase agreements:

    85 responses 680 hours of professional time Cost: $178,160 14

    14 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (680 burden hours × $262 per hour for professional time) = $178,160 per fund.

    Public website posting of monthly portfolio information:

    12 responses 7 hours of professional time Cost: $17,304 15

    15 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (12 x 7 burden hours × $206 per hour for a webmaster) = $17,304 per fund.

    Review of procedures and guidelines of any investment adviser to whom the fund's board has delegated responsibility under rule 2a-7 and amendment of such procedures:

    1 response 5 hours of professional and director time Cost: $5,960 16

    16 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1 hour × $4,500 per hour for board time) + (4 hours × $365 per hour for professional time) = $5,960 per fund.

    Based on census data available on Form PF, the staff believes that the number of private liquidity funds reported on Form PF (69) is the most current and accurate estimate the number of unregistered money market funds affected by rule 12d1-1.17 Each of these unregistered money market funds engages in the collections of information described above. Accordingly, the staff estimates that unregistered money market funds complying with the collections of information described above engage in a total of 6,762 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,18 the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is 47,748,19 and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $13,898,256.20

    17See supra note 12. The staff notes, however, that this estimate may be overstated to the extent that a private liquidity fund reported on Form PF does not follow all of rule 2a-7's requirements (that include collections of information) or because no registered investment companies invest in such a fund. The staff also notes, however, that this estimate may be understated to the extent that there are additional unregistered money market funds that are not required to be reported on Form PF (because Form PF is filed only by certain investment advisers to private funds that have $150 million in private fund assets under management).

    18 The estimate is based on the following calculations: (69 funds × 85 responses for documentation of credit analyses and other determinations) = 5,865 responses. (69 funds × 12 responses for public website posting) = 828 responses. (69 funds × 1 response for policies and procedures related to delegation to an investment adviser) = 69 responses. 5,865 responses + 828 responses + 69 responses = 6,762 responses.

    19 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (69 funds × 680 hours for documentation of credit analyses and other determinations) = 46,920 hours. (69 funds × 7 hours for public website posting) = 483 hours. (69 funds × 5 hours for policies and procedures related to delegation to an investment adviser) = 345 hours. 46,920 hours + 483 hours + 345 hours = 47,748 hours.

    20 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (69 funds × $178,160) = $12,293,040. (69 funds x $17,304) = $1,193,976. (69 funds × $5,960) = $411,240. $12,293,040 + $1,193,976 + $411,240 = $13,898,256.

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff further estimated the aggregate annual hour and cost burdens for collections of information for fund complexes with registered money market funds as follows:

    Review, revise, and approve procedures concerning stress testing:

    1 response 12 burden hours of professional and director time Cost: $8,021 21

    21 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1 hour × $4,500 per hour for board time) + (5 hours × $322 per hour for a portfolio manager) + (3 hours × $259 per hour for a risk management specialist) + (3 hours × $378 per hour for an attorney) = $8,021 per response.

    Report to fund boards on the results of stress testing:

    5 responses 10 burden hours of professional and support staff time Cost: $15,490 22

    22 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (5 responses × 5 hours × $322 per hour for a portfolio manager) + (5 responses × 2 hours × $279 per hour for a compliance manager) + (5 responses × 2 hours × $378 per hour for an attorney) + (5 responses × 1 hour × $174 per hour for support staff) = $15,490 per fund complex.

    Reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions: 23

    23See 17 CFR 270.17a-9.

    1 response 1 burden hour of legal time Cost: $378 24

    24 The estimate is based on the following calculations: (1 response × $378 per hour for an attorney) = $378 per response.

    Based on the number of liquidity fund advisers reported on Form PF, the staff estimates that there are 39 fund complexes with unregistered money market funds invested in by mutual funds in excess of the statutory limits under rule 12d1-1.25 Each of these fund complexes engages in the collections of information described above. Accordingly, the staff estimates that these fund complexes complying with the collections of information described above engage in a total of 273 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,26 the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is 897,27 and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $931,671.28

    25See supra note 12.

    26 The estimate is based on the following calculations: (39 fund complexes × 1 response for revision of procedures concerning stress testing) = 39 responses. (39 fund complexes × 5 responses to provide stress testing reports) = 195 responses. (39 fund complexes × 1 response for reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions) = 39 responses. 39 responses + 195 responses + 39 responses = 273 responses.

    27 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (39 fund complexes × 12 hours for revision of procedures concerning stress testing) = 468 hours. (39 fund complexes × 10 hours to provide stress testing reports) = 390 hours. (39 fund complexes × 1 hour for reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions) = 39 hours. 468 hours + 390 hours + 39 hours = 897 hours.

    28 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (39 fund complexes × $8,021 for revision of procedures concerning stress testing) = $312,819. (39 fund complexes × $15,490 to provide stress testing reports) = $604,110. (39 fund complexes × $378 for reporting of rule 17a-9 transactions) = $14,742. $312,819 + $604,110 + $14,742 = $931,671.

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff further estimated the aggregate annual burdens for registered money market funds that experience an event of default or insolvency as follows:

    Written record of board determinations and actions related to failure of a security to meet certain eligibility standards or an event of default of default or insolvency:

    2 responses 1 burden hour of legal time Cost: $378

    Notice to Commission of an event of default or insolvency:

    1 response 0.5 burden hours of legal time Cost: $189

    Consistent with the estimate in the rule 2a-7 submissions, Commission staff estimates that approximately 2 percent, or 1, unregistered money market fund experiences an event of default or insolvency each year. Accordingly, the staff estimates that one unregistered money market fund will comply with these collections of information requirements and engage in 3 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,29 the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is 1.5,30 and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $567.31

    29 The estimate is based on the following calculations: (1 fund × 2 responses) + (1 fund × 1 response) = 3 responses.

    30 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1 fund × 1 hour) + (1 fund × 0.5 hours) = 1.5 hours.

    31 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1 fund × $378) + (1 fund × $189) = $567.

    In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff further estimated the aggregate annual burdens for newly registered money market funds as follows:

    Establish written procedures and guidelines designed to stabilize the fund's net asset value and establish procedures for board delegation of authority:

    1 response 15.5 hours of director, legal, and support staff time Cost: $6,328 32

    32 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0.5 hours × $4,500 per hour for board time) + (7.2 hours × $378 per hour for an attorney) + (7.8 hours × $174 per hour for support staff) = $6,328 per response.

    Adopt procedures concerning stress testing:

    1 response per fund complex 22 burden hours of professional and director time per fund complex Cost: $19,373 per fund complex 33

    33 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3 hours × $4,500 per hour for board time) + (8 hours × $378 per hour for an attorney) + (11 hours × $259 per hour for a risk management specialist) = $19,373 per response. See also infra note 34.

    Commission staff estimates that the proportion of unregistered money market funds that intend to newly undertake the collection of information burdens of rule 2a-7 will be similar to the proportion of money market funds that are newly registered. Based on a projection of 10 new money market funds per year (in the most recent rule 2a-7 submission), the staff estimates that, similarly, there will be 10 new unregistered money market funds that undertake the above burden to establish written procedures and guidelines designed to stabilize the fund's net asset value and establish procedures for board delegation of authority.34 Accordingly, the staff estimates that 10 unregistered money market funds will comply with this collection of information requirement and engage in 10 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,35 the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is 155,36 and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $62,380.37

    34 The staff's estimate is based on historical data provided in Lipper Inc.'s LANA database and projections about the growth of the money market mutual fund industry going forward. The actual number of new money market funds launched may vary significantly from our estimates depending upon developments in market interest rates and other factors. The staff does not estimate any new fund complexes being launched in the next year.

    35 The estimate is based on the following calculations: (10 funds × 1 response) = 10 responses.

    36 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10 funds × 15.5 hours) = 155 hours.

    37 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10 funds × $6,238) = $62,380.

    Accordingly, the estimated total number of annual responses under rule 12d1-1 for the collections of information described in the rule 2a-7 submissions is 7,048, the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is 48,801.5, and the aggregate cost to funds is $14,892,874.38

    38 These estimates are based upon the following calculations: (6,762 + 273 + 3+ 10) = 7,048 annual responses; (47,748 + 897 + 1.5 + 155) = 48,801.5 burden hours; and ($13,898,256 + $931,671 + $567 + $62,380) = $14,892,874.

    Rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 31a-1(b)(2)(iv), and 31a-1(b)(9) require registered funds to keep certain records, which include journals and general and auxiliary ledgers, including ledgers for each portfolio security and each shareholder of record of the fund. Most of the records required to be maintained by the rule are the type that generally would be maintained as a matter of good business practice and to prepare the unregistered money market fund's financial statements. Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that the requirements under rules 31a-1(b)(1), 31a-1(b)(2)(ii), 31a-1(b)(2)(iv), and 31a-1(b)(9) would not impose any additional burden because the costs of maintaining these records would be incurred by unregistered money market funds in any case to keep books and records that are necessary to prepare financial statements for shareholders, to prepare the fund's annual income tax returns, and as a normal business custom.

    Rule 12d1-1 also requires unregistered money market funds in which registered funds invest to adopt procedures designed to ensure that the unregistered money market funds comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), and 22(e) of the Act. This is a one-time collection of information requirement that applies to unregistered money market funds that intend to comply with the requirements of rule 12d1-1. As discussed above, based on a projection of 10 new money market funds per year, the staff estimates that, similarly, there will be 10 new unregistered money market funds that undertake the above burden to establish written procedures and guidelines designed to ensure that the unregistered money market funds comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), and 22(e) of the Act. The staff estimates the burden as follows:

    Establish written procedures and guidelines designed to ensure that the unregistered money market funds comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), and 22(e) of the Act:

    1 response 15.5 hours of director, legal, and support staff time Cost: $6,328 39

    39 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0.5 hours × $4,500 per hour for board time) + (7.2 hours × $378 per hour for an attorney) + (7.8 hours × $174 per hour for support staff) = $6,328 per response.

    Accordingly, the staff estimates that 10 unregistered money market funds will comply with this collection of information requirement and engage in 10 annual responses under rule 12d1-1,40 the aggregate annual burden hours associated with these responses is 155,41 and the aggregate annual cost to funds is $62,380.42

    40 The estimate is based on the following calculations: (10 funds × 1 response) = 10 responses.

    41 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10 funds × 15.5 hours) = 155 hours.

    42 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10 funds × $6,238) = $62,380.

    Commission staff also estimates that unregistered money market funds will incur costs to preserve records, as required under rule 2a-7. These costs will vary significantly for individual funds, depending on the amount of assets under fund management and whether the fund preserves its records in a storage facility in hard copy or has developed and maintains a computer system to create and preserve compliance records. In the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff estimated that the amount an individual money market fund may spend ranges from $100 per year to $300,000. We have no reason to believe the range is different for unregistered money market funds. Based on Form PF data as of the fourth calendar quarter 2016, private liquidity funds have $293 billion in gross asset value.43 The Commission does not have specific information about the proportion of assets held in small, medium-sized, or large unregistered money market funds. Because private liquidity funds are often used as cash management vehicles, the staff estimates that each private liquidity fund is a “large” fund (i.e., more than $1 billion in assets under management). Based on a cost of $0.0000009 per dollar of assets under management (for large funds),44 the staff estimates compliance with rule 2a-7 for these unregistered money market funds totals $263,700 annually.45

    43See supra note 12.

    44 The recordkeeping cost estimates are $0.0051295 per dollar of assets under management for small funds, and $0.0005041 per dollar of assets under management for medium-sized funds. The cost estimates are the same as those used in the most recently approved rule 2a-7 submission.

    45 This estimate is based on the following calculation: ($293 billion × $0.0000009) = $263,700 billion for small funds.

    Consistent with estimates made in the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff estimates that unregistered money market funds also incur capital costs to create computer programs for maintaining and preserving compliance records for rule 2a-7 of $0.0000132 per dollar of assets under management. Based on the assets under management figures described above, staff estimates annual capital costs for all unregistered money market funds of $3.87 million.46

    46 This estimate is based on the following calculation: ($293 billion × 0.0000132) = $3.87 million.

    Commission staff further estimates that, even absent the requirements of rule 2a-7, money market funds would spend at least half of the amounts described above for record preservation ($131,850) and for capital costs ($1.94 million). Commission staff concludes that the aggregate annual costs of compliance with the rule are $131,850 for record preservation and $1.94 million for capital costs.

    The collections of information required for unregistered money market funds by rule 12d1-1 are necessary in order for acquiring funds to be able to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the Commission will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.

    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected]

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02118 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82602; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-139] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the ProShares Bitcoin ETF and the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02 January 30, 2018.

    On December 4, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade the shares of the ProShares Bitcoin ETF and the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017.3 The Commission has received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.4

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82350 (Dec. 19, 2017), 82 FR 61100.

    4See Letter from Abe Kohen, AK Financial Engineering Consultants, LLC (Dec. 27, 2017). All comments on the proposed rule change are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-139/nysearca2017139.htm.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 5 provides that within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 designates March 26, 2018, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-139).

    6Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.7

    7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02130 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82597; File No. SR-BX-2018-007] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules January 30, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 24, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance rules (“CAT Rules”), currently under the 6800 Series (Rules 6810 through 6896), to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 in the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure.3

    3 Recently, the Exchange added a shell structure to its Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Affiliated Exchanges”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82174 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57492 (December 5, 2017) (SR-BX-2017-054).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the CAT Rules, currently under the 6800 Series, Rules 6810 through 6896, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 of the Rulebook's shell structure.

    The Exchange adopted the CAT Rules to implement a consolidated audit trail in order to capture customer and order event information to comply with the provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.4 Because the CAT Rules apply across all markets and to all products,5 the Exchange believes it is pertinent that they be located in the General section of the Rulebook's shell; therefore, the Exchange will amend the shell structure, creating a new “General 7 Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance” title under “General Equity and Options Rules,” and make conforming changes to the “Options Rules” titles; moreover, this proposal is consistent with similar filings concurrently submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-BX-2017-007) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules).

    5Id.

    The relocation of the CAT Rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges.6 The Exchange believes that the migration of the CAT Rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members 7 of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers and make conforming cross-reference changes.

    6See footnote 3.

    7 Exchange Rule 0120(i).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,9 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by promoting efficiency and conformity of the Exchange's processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its Members. The Exchange believes that the relocation of the CAT Rules and cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive nature.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules across the Affiliated Exchanges.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 10 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.11

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 12 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can reorganize its Rulebook as already approved by the Commission. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.14

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-BX-2018-007 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-007. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-007 and should be submitted on or before February 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02125 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 11a-2, SEC File No. 270-267, OMB Control No. 3235-0272

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

    Rule 11a-2 (17 CFR 270.11a-2) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) permits certain registered insurance company separate accounts, subject to certain conditions, to make exchange offers without prior approval by the Commission of the terms of those offers. Rule 11a-2 requires disclosure, in certain registration statements filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) of any administrative fee or sales load imposed in connection with an exchange offer.

    There are currently 673 registrants governed by Rule 11a-2. The Commission includes the estimated burden of complying with the information collection required by Rule 11a-2 in the total number of burden hours estimated for completing the relevant registration statements and reports the burden of Rule 11a-2 in the separate Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) submissions for those registration statements (see the separate PRA submissions for Form N-3 (17 CFR 274.11b), Form N-4 (17 CFR 274.11c) and Form N-6 (17 CFR 274.11d). The Commission is requesting a burden of one hour for Rule 11a-2 for administrative purposes.

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the PRA, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules or forms. With regard to Rule 11a-2, the Commission includes the estimate of burden hours in the total number of burden hours estimated for completing the relevant registration statements and reported on the separate PRA submissions for those statements (see the separate PRA submissions for Form N-3, Form N-4 and Form N-6). The information collection requirements imposed by Rule 11a-2 are mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential.

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 in writing within 60 days of this publication.

    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected]

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02117 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82596; File No. SR-OCC-2018-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise The Options Clearing Corporation's Schedule of Fees January 30, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 19, 2018, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 4 thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's Schedule of Fees effective March 1, 2018, to implement an increase in clearing fees in accordance with OCC's Fee Policy.5 The proposed changes to the Schedule of Fees can be found in Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.6

    5 OCC's Fee Policy was adopted as part of OCC's plan for raising additional capital (“Capital Plan”), which was put in place in light of proposed regulatory capital requirements applicable to systemically important financial market utilities, such as OCC. See Exchange Act Release No. 34-74452 (March 6, 2015), 80 FR 13058 (March 12, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-02); Exchange Act Release No. 34-74387 (February 26, 2015), 80 FR 12215 (March 6, 2015) (SR-OCC-2014-813) (“Approval Orders”). BATS Global Markets, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and Susquehanna International Group, LLP each filed petitions for review of the Approval Order, challenging the action taken by delegated authority. Following review of these petitions, on August 8, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded the Approval Orders to the Commission to further analyze whether the Capital Plan is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2017). While the Commission further analyzes the Capital Plan, it remains in effect as originally approved by the Commission. See id.

    6 OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change (1) Purpose

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's Schedule of Fees in accordance with its Fee Policy to set OCC's fees at a level designed to cover OCC's operating expenses and maintain a Business Risk Buffer of 25%.7 The revised fee schedule would become effective on March 1, 2018.8

    7 The Business Risk Buffer is equal to net income before refunds, dividends, and taxes divided by total revenue.

    8 OCC recently filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to revise its Fee Policy to provide that proposed fee changes are required to be implemented no sooner than thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the proposed rule change concerning such fee change (as opposed to sixty (60) days). See SR-OCC-2018-001. OCC also has submitted the proposed changes to its Fee Policy to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) under CFTC Regulation 40.6 and expects the proposed changes to be certified on January 24, 2018. OCC notes that implementation of the proposed fee change on March 1, 2018, requires either (i) Commission approval of SR-OCC-2018-001 and certification of the Fee Policy changes in SR-OCC-2018-001 under CFTC Regulation 40.6 or (ii) an exception to the 60-day notice period provision in the Fee Policy authorized by OCC's Board of Directors and the holders of all of the outstanding Class B Common Stock of OCC. OCC's Board of Directors unanimously approved, and the holders of all of the outstanding Class B Common Stock of OCC unanimously consented to, the reduction of the 60-day notice period to 30 days on December 15, 2016.

    By way of background, OCC implemented its Capital Plan in 2015,9 which was put in place in light of proposed regulatory capital requirements applicable to systemically important financial market utilities, such as OCC. As part of OCC's Capital Plan, OCC adopted a Fee Policy whereby OCC would set clearing fees at a level that covers OCC's operating expenses plus a Business Risk Buffer of 25%.10 The purpose of the Business Risk Buffer is to ensure that OCC accumulates sufficient capital to cover unexpected fluctuations in operating expenses, business capital needs, and regulatory capital requirements.

    9See supra note 5.

    10 OCC's Schedule of Fees must also meet the requirements set forth in Article IX, Section 9 of OCC's By-Laws. In general, Article IX, Section 9 of OCC's By-Laws requires that OCC's fee structure be designed to: 1) cover OCC's operating expenses plus a business risk buffer; 2) maintain reserves deemed reasonably necessary by OCC's Board of Directors; and 3) accumulate an additional surplus deemed advisable by the Board of Directors to permit OCC to meet its obligations to its clearing members and the public. Clauses 2 and 3 above will only be invoked at the discretion of OCC's Board of Directors and in extraordinary circumstances.

    OCC recently reviewed its current Schedule of Fees 11 against projected revenues and expenses for 2018 in accordance with its Fee Policy, to determine whether the Schedule of Fees was sufficient to cover OCC's anticipated operating expenses and achieve a Business Risk Buffer of 25%. In reviewing the Schedule of Fees, OCC analyzed: (i) Expenses budgeted for 2018, (ii) projected other revenue streams for 2018, (iii) projected volume “mix,” and (iv) projected volume growth for 2018. Based on the foregoing analysis, OCC determined that the current fee schedule is set at a level that would be insufficient to ensure that OCC achieves its Business Risk Buffer of 25% as required under the Fee Policy.12 OCC arrived at the proposed fee schedule presented herein by determining the figures that provide the best opportunity for OCC to achieve coverage of its anticipated operating expenses plus a Business Risk Buffer of 25%.

    11 OCC previously revised its Schedule of Fees effective December 1, 2016, to implement a fee increase in accordance with the Fee Policy. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79028 (October 3, 2016), 81 FR 69885 (October 7, 2016) (SR-OCC-2016-012).

    12 OCC has provided a summary of its analysis in confidential Exhibit 3 of the filing.

    As a result of the aforementioned analysis, OCC proposes to revise its Schedule of Fees as set forth below.13

    13 These changes are also reflected in Exhibit 5.

    Current fee schedule Trades with contracts of: Current fee Proposed fee schedule Trades with
  • contracts of:
  • Proposed fee
    1-1100 $0.050/contract 1-1018 $0.054/contract. >1100 $55/trade >1018 $55/trade.

    OCC proposes to modify its fee schedule to: (i) Increase its per contract clearing fee from $0.050 to $0.054 per contract and (ii) adjust the quantity of contracts at which the fixed, per trade clearing fee begins from greater than 1100 contracts per trade to greater than 1018 contracts per trade. The proposed changes are designed to target a level of revenues sufficient to cover OCC's operating expenses plus a Business Risk Buffer of 25% while continuing to maintain OCC's existing fixed, per trade fee at a level of $55 per trade.

    In accordance with its Fee Policy, OCC will continue to monitor cleared contract volume and operating expenses in order to determine if further revisions to OCC's Schedule of Fees are required so that monies received from clearing fees cover OCC's operating expenses plus a Business Risk Buffer of 25%.14

    14 Any subsequent changes to OCC's Schedule of Fees would be the subject of a subsequent proposed rule change filed with the Commission.

    (2) Statutory Basis

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, requires that the rules of a clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.15 The proposed fee schedule was set in accordance with the criteria set forth in OCC's Capital Plan, which requires that OCC's fees be set at a level designed to cover OCC's operating expenses and maintain a Business Risk Buffer of 25%.16 OCC believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because the fee increase would be set at a level intended only to facilitate the maintenance of OCC's Business Risk Buffer of 25%, which is designed to ensure that OCC accumulates sufficient capital to cover unexpected fluctuations in operating expenses, business capital needs, and regulatory capital requirements. Moreover, OCC believes that the proposed fee change would result in an equitable allocation of fees among its participants because it would be equally applicable to all market participants. As a result, OCC believes that the proposed fee schedule provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.17 The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

    15 17 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).

    16See supra note 5.

    17 17 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).

    (B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act18 requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a burden on competition. Although this proposed rule change affects clearing members, their customers, and the markets that OCC serves, OCC believes that the proposed rule change would not disadvantage or favor any particular user of OCC's services in relationship to another user because the proposed clearing fees apply equally to all users of OCC. Accordingly, OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a burden on competition.

    18 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).

    (C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 19 of the Act, and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,20 the proposed rule change is filed for immediate effectiveness as it constitutes a change in fees charged to OCC Clearing Members. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.21

    19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    21 Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed certified under CFTC Rule 40.6.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-OCC-2018-004 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-004. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.

    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-004 and should be submitted on or before February 23, 2018.

    22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). OCC filed this proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Exchange Act Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) and Rule 19b-4(f)(2). As stated above in note 8, OCC may not implement the proposed change unless either (i) the Commission issues an Order approving the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2018-001 or (ii) an exception to the 60-day notice period provision in the Fee Policy is authorized by OCC's Board of Directors and the holders of all of the outstanding Class B Common Stock of OCC.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.22

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02124 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25, SEC File No. 270-86, OMB Control No. 3235-0080

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for approval of extension of the previously approved collection of information provided for the following rule: Rule 12d2-2 (17 CFR 240.12d2-2) and Form 25 (17 CFR 249.25).

    On February 12, 1935, the Commission adopted Rule 12d2-2,1 and Form 25 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (“Act”), which sets forth the conditions and procedures under which a security may be delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act.2 The Commission adopted amendments to Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 in 2005.3 Under the adopted Rule 12d2-2, all issuers and national securities exchanges seeking to delist and deregister a security in accordance with the rules of an exchange must file the adopted version of Form 25 with the Commission. The Commission also adopted amendments to Rule 19d-1 under the Act to require exchanges to file the adopted version of Form 25 as notice to the Commission under Section 19(d) of the Act. Finally, the Commission adopted amendments to exempt standardized options and security futures products from Section 12(d) of the Act. These amendments are intended to simplify the paperwork and procedure associated with a delisting and to unify general rules and procedures relating to the delisting process.

    1See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98 (February 12, 1935).

    2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 7011 (February 5, 1963), 28 FR 1506 (February 16, 1963).

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005).

    The Form 25 is useful because it informs the Commission that a security previously traded on an exchange is no longer traded. In addition, the Form 25 enables the Commission to verify that the delisting and/or deregistration has occurred in accordance with the rules of the exchange. Further, the Form 25 helps to focus the attention of delisting issuers to make sure that they abide by the proper procedural and notice requirements associated with a delisting and/or deregistration. Without Rule 12d2-2 and the Form 25, as applicable, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.

    There are 21 national securities exchanges that could possibly be respondents complying with the requirements of the Rule and Form 25.4 The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 is not evenly distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many more securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Market, and NYSE American than on the other exchanges. However, for purposes of this filing, the Commission staff has assumed that the number of responses is evenly divided among the exchanges. Since approximately 800 responses under Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 for the purpose of delisting and/or deregistration of equity securities are received annually by the Commission from the national securities exchanges, the resultant aggregate annual reporting hour burden would be, assuming on average one hour per response, 800 annual burden hours for all exchanges (21 exchanges × an average of 38.1 responses per exchange × 1 hour per response). In addition, since approximately 100 responses are received by the Commission annually from issuers wishing to remove their securities from listing and registration on exchanges, the Commission staff estimates that the aggregate annual reporting hour burden on issuers would be, assuming on average one reporting hour per response, 100 annual burden hours for all issuers (100 issuers × 1 response per issuer × 1 hour per response). Accordingly, the total annual hour burden for all respondents to comply with Rule 12d2-2 is 900 hours (800 hours for exchanges + 100 hours for issuers). The related internal cost of compliance associated with these burden hours is $188,400 ($157,000 for exchanges ($196.25 per response × 800 responses) and $31,400 for issuers ($314 per response × 100 responses)).

    4 The staff notes that a few of these 21 registered national securities exchanges only have rules to permit the listing of standardized options, which are exempt from Rule 12d2-2 under the Act. Nevertheless, the staff counted national securities exchanges that can only list options as potential respondents because these exchanges could potentially adopt new rules, subject to Commission approval under Section 19(b) of the Act, to list and trade equity and other securities that have to comply with Rule 12d2-2 under the Act. Notice registrants that are registered as national securities exchanges solely for the purposes of trading securities futures products have not been counted since, as noted above, securities futures products are exempt from complying with Rule 12d-2-2 under the Act and therefore do not have to file Form 25.

    The collection of information obligations imposed by Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 are mandatory. The response will be available to the public and will not be kept confidential.

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

    The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: January 30, 2018. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02115 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82599; File No. SR-ISE-2018-09] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules January 30, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 24, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance rules (“CAT Rules”), currently under Chapter 9, Rules 900 through 912, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 in the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure.3

    3 Recently, the Exchange added a shell structure to its Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Affiliated Exchanges”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82173 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57505 (December 5, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-102).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the CAT Rules, currently under Chapter 9, Rules 900 through 912, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 of the Rulebook's shell structure.

    The Exchange adopted the CAT Rules to implement a consolidated audit trail in order to capture customer and order event information to comply with the provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.4 Because the CAT Rules apply across all markets and to all products,5 the Exchange believes it is pertinent that they be located in the General section of the Rulebook's shell; therefore, the Exchange will amend the shell structure, creating a new “General 7 Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance” title under “General Rules,” and make conforming changes to the “Options Rules” titles; moreover, this proposal is consistent with similar filings concurrently submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-08) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules).

    The Exchange also notes that, at the time of the approval of the CAT Rules, the Exchange was known as “International Securities Exchange, LLC.” To reflect the Exchange's placement within its parent company's corporate structure, Nasdaq, Inc., the Exchange name was changed to “Nasdaq ISE, LLC.” See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80325 (March 29, 2017), 82 FR 16445 (April 4, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-25).

    5Id.

    The relocation of the CAT Rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges.6 The Exchange believes that the migration of the CAT Rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members 7 of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers, make cross-reference changes, and make changes to harmonize the proposed rule with the text of filings simultaneously submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.8

    6See footnote 3.

    7 Exchange Rule 100(a)(26).

    8 Specifically, the Exchange will remove the word “Rule” from General 7's title which will now read “Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance.”

    Moreover, the Exchange will update the description provided under General 7, Section 12(a), “General,” to exactly match the contents of similar sections in the Nasdaq, BX, and Phlx rulebooks. This change will not alter Section 12(a) since (i) the description under this subsection is essentially the same to that of the aforementioned Affiliated Exchanges and (ii) the removal of the phrase “upon approval by the Commission” is unnecessary at this point since the CAT Rules are already effective.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by promoting efficiency and conformity of the Exchange's processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its Members. The Exchange believes that the relocation of the CAT Rules and cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive nature.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules across the Affiliated Exchanges.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.12

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 14 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can reorganize its Rulebook as already approved by the Commission. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.15

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISE-2018-09 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-09. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-09 and should be submitted on or before February 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02127 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-82601; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules January 30, 2018.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 24, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance rules (“CAT Rules”), Rules 900A through 996A, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 in the Exchange's rulebook's (“Rulebook”) shell structure.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the CAT Rules, currently identified as Rules 900A through 996A, to General 7, Sections 1 through 13 of the Rulebook's shell structure.

    The Exchange adopted the CAT Rules to implement a consolidated audit trail in order to capture customer and order event information to comply with the provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail.3 Because the CAT Rules apply across all markets and to all products,4 the Exchange believes it is pertinent that they be located in the General section of the Rulebook's shell; therefore, the Exchange will amend the shell structure, creating a new “General 7 Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance” title under “General Equity and Options Rules,” and make conforming changes to the “Options Rules” titles; moreover, this proposal is consistent with similar filings concurrently submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15, 2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-Phlx-2017-07) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules).

    4Id.

    The relocation of the CAT Rules is part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges.5 The Exchange believes that the migration of the CAT Rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by Members 6 of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers, make cross-reference changes, and make a minor change to harmonize the proposed rule text with the filings simultaneously submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.

    5See footnote 3.

    6 Exchange Rule 1(r).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,8 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by promoting efficiency and conformity of the Exchange's processes with those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the Exchange's Rulebook easier to read and more accessible to its Members. The Exchange believes that the relocation of the CAT Rules and cross-reference updates are of a non-substantive nature.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules across the Affiliated Exchanges.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.10

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 11 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 12 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can reorganize its Rulebook as already approved by the Commission. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.13

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2018-11 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-11 and should be submitted on or before February 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.14

    14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02129 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 10258] Global Magntisky Human Rights Accountability Act Annual Report AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice contains the text of the report, submitted by the President required by the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, as submitted by the Secretary of State.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benjamin A. Kraut, Email: [email protected] gov, Phone: (202) 647-9452.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 21, 2017, The Secretary of State approved the following report pursuant to a delegation of authority from the President under Executive Order 13818. Executive Order 13818, which implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Pub. L. 114-328, Subtitle F), was issued by the President on December 20, 2017 with an effective date of December 21, 2017. The text of the report follows:

    As required by Section 1264 of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-328, Subtitle F) (the “Act”), and in accordance with the executive order (E.O.) issued to implement the Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, submits this report to detail the Administration's implementation of the Act in 2017.

    Enacted on December 23, 2016, the Act authorizes the President to impose financial sanctions and visa restrictions on foreign persons responsible for acts of corruption or certain human rights violations. On December 20, 2017, the President issued an executive order to implement the Act. This executive order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to impose financial sanctions on persons determined to be directly or indirectly responsible for serious human rights abuse or acts of significant corruption. The executive order also authorizes the Secretary of State to impose visa restrictions on persons designated pursuant to the executive order.

    The United States is committed to protecting and promoting human rights and combatting corruption around the world. These efforts advance a world order that reflects U.S. values and increases the security of the United States, its allies, and its partners. The United States has led, and is uniquely positioned to continue leading, the international community in efforts to combat human rights abuse and corruption on the international stage. Sanctions issued pursuant to the Act, as implemented by the executive order, are consistent with these longstanding efforts.

    The United States will, under the executive order, pursue tangible and significant consequences for those who commit serious human rights abuse and engage in corruption. This tool will be used without hesitation to advance U.S. interests in cases involving human rights abusers or corrupt actors who are beyond the reach of other U.S. sanctions authorities, but whose designation could have an impact on these and other malign actors.

    Financial Sanctions

    Over the last year, various departments and agencies of the United States Government have actively collected information from multiple sources—including the Intelligence Community, U.S. missions around the world, non-governmental organizations, and Congress—to support sanctions designations under the executive order.

    In the executive order, the President issued sanctions and visa restrictions on several persons around the world for human rights abuse or corruption. Simultaneously, the Department of the Treasury issued a number of designations targeting individuals and entities engaged in human rights abuse or corruption or supporting those sanctioned by the President. The Annex and designations issued this year pursuant to the executive order are detailed below:

    Yahya Jammeh: Yahya Jammeh (Jammeh), the former President of The Gambia who came to power in 1994 and stepped down in 2017, has a long history of engaging in serious human rights abuses and corruption. Jammeh created a terror and assassination squad called the Junglers that answered directly to him. Jammeh used the Junglers to threaten, terrorize, interrogate, and kill individuals whom Jammeh assessed to be threats. During Jammeh's tenure, he ordered the Junglers to kill a local religious leader, journalists, members of the political opposition, and former members of the government, among others. Jammeh used the Gambia's National Intelligence Agency (NIA) as a repressive tool of the regime—torturing political opponents and journalists. Throughout his presidency, Jammeh routinely ordered the abuse and murder of those he suspected of undermining his authority.

    During his tenure, Jammeh used a number of corrupt schemes to plunder The Gambia's state coffers or otherwise siphon off state funds for his personal gain. Ongoing investigations continue to reveal Jammeh's large-scale theft from state coffers prior to his departure. According to The Gambia's Justice Ministry, Jammeh personally, or through others acting under his instructions, directed the unlawful withdrawal of at least $50 million of state funds. The Gambian Government has since taken action to freeze Jammeh's assets within The Gambia.

    Related to Jammeh's designation, the Department of the Treasury also designated Africada Airways, Kanilai Group International, Kanilai Worni Family Farms Ltd, Royal Africa Capital Holding Ltd, Africada Financial Service & Bureau de Change Ltd, Africada Micro-Finance Ltd, Africada Insurance Company, Kora Media Corporation Ltd, Atlantic Pelican Company Ltd, Palm Grove Africa Dev't Corp. Ltd, Patriot Insurance Brokers Co. Ltd, and Royal Africa Securities Brokerage Co Ltd.

    Roberto Jose Rivas Reyes: As President of Nicaragua's Supreme Electoral Council, drawing a reported government salary of $60,000 per year, Roberto Jose Rivas Reyes (Rivas) has been accused in the press of amassing sizeable personal wealth, including multiple properties, private jets, luxury vehicles, and a yacht. Rivas has been described by a Nicaraguan Comptroller General as “above the law,” with investigations into his corruption having been blocked by Nicaraguan government officials. He has also perpetrated electoral fraud undermining Nicaragua's electoral institutions.

    Dan Gertler: Dan Gertler (Gertler) is an international businessman and billionaire who amassed his fortune through hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of opaque and corrupt mining and oil deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Gertler has used his close friendship with DRC President Joseph Kabila to act as a middleman for mining asset sales in the DRC, requiring some multinational companies to go through Gertler to do business with the Congolese state. As a result, between 2010 and 2012 alone, the DRC reportedly lost over $1.36 billion in revenues from the underpricing of mining assets that were sold to offshore companies linked to Gertler. The failure of the DRC to publish the full details of one of the sales prompted the International Monetary Fund to halt loans to the DRC totaling $225 million. In 2013, Gertler sold to the DRC government for $150 million the rights to an oil block that Gertler purchased from the government for just $500,000, a loss of $149.5 million in potential revenue. Gertler has acted for or on behalf of Kabila, helping Kabila organize offshore leasing companies.

    Related to Gertler's designation, the Department of the Treasury designated Pieter Albert Deboutte, Fleurette Properties Limited, Fleurette Holdings Netherlands B.V., Gertler Family Foundation, Oil of DR Congo SPRL, Jarvis Congo SARL, International Diamond Industries, D.G.D. Investments Ltd., D.G.I. Israel Ltd, Proglan Capital Ltd, Emaxon Finance International Inc., Africa Horizons Investment Limited, Caprikat Limited, Foxwhelp Limited, Caprikat and Foxwhelp SARL, Lora Enterprises Limited, Zuppa Holdings Limited, Orama Properties Ltd, DGI Mining Ltd, and Rozaro Development Limited.

    Slobodan Tesic: Slobodan Tesic (Tesic) is among the biggest dealers of arms and munitions in the Balkans; he spent nearly a decade on the United Nations (UN) Travel Ban List for violating UN sanctions against arms exports to Liberia. In order to secure arms contracts with various countries, Tesic would directly or indirectly provide bribes and financial assistance to officials. Tesic also took potential clients on high-value vacations, paid for their children's education at western schools or universities, and used large bribes to secure contracts. Tesic owns or controls two Serbian companies, Partizan Tech and Technoglobal Systems DOO Beograd, and two Cyprus-based companies Grawit Limited and Charso Limited. Tesic negotiates the sale of weapons via Charso Limited and used Grawit Limited as a mechanism to fund politicians.

    Related to Tesic's designation, the Department of the Treasury designated Preduzece Za Trgovinu Na Veliko I Malo Partizan Tech DOO Beograd-Savski Venac (“Partizan Tech”), Charso Limited, Grawit Limited, and Technoglobal Systems DOO Beograd.

    Maung Maung Soe: In his former role as chief of the Burmese Army's Western command, Maung Maung Soe oversaw the military operation in Burma's Rakhine State responsible for widespread human rights abuse against Rohingya civilians in response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. The Secretary of State determined on November 22 that the situation in northern Rakhine state in Burma constituted ethnic cleansing. The United States Government examined credible evidence of Maung Maung Soe's activities, including allegations against Burmese security forces of extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and arbitrary arrest as well as the widespread burning of villages. Security operations have led to hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees fleeing across Burma's border with Bangladesh. In August 2017, witnesses reportedly described mass killings and arson attacks by the Burmese Army and Burmese Border Guard Police, both then under Maung Maung Soe's command in northern Rakhine State. In August 2017, soldiers described as being from the Western Command allegedly entered a village and reportedly separated the inhabitants by gender. According to witnesses, soldiers opened fire on the men and older boys and committed multiple acts of rape. Many of the women and younger children were reportedly also shot. Other witnesses described soldiers setting huts on fire with villagers inside.

    Benjamin Bol Mel: Benjamin Bol Mel (Bol Mel) is the President of ABMC Thai-South Sudan Construction Company Limited (ABMC), and has served as the Chairman of the South Sudan Chamber of Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture. Bol Mel has also served as South Sudanese President Salva Kiir's principal financial advisor, has been Kiir's private secretary, and was perceived within the government as being close to Kiir and the local business community. Several officials were linked to ABMC in spite of a constitutional prohibition on top government officials transacting commercial business or earning income from outside the government.

    Bol Mel oversees ABMC, which has been awarded contracts worth tens of millions of dollars by the Government of South Sudan. ABMC allegedly received preferential treatment from high-level officials, and the Government of South Sudan did not hold a competitive process for selecting ABMC to do roadwork on several roads in Juba and throughout South Sudan. Although this roadwork had been completed only a few years before, the government budgeted tens of millions of dollars more for maintenance of the same roads.

    Related to Bol Mel's designation, the Department of the Treasury designated ABMC Thai-South Sudan Construction Company Limited and Home and Away LTD.

    Mukhtar Hamid Shah: Mukhtar Hamid Shah (Shah) is a Pakistani surgeon specializing in kidney transplants who Pakistani police believe to be involved in kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and the removal of and trafficking in human organs. As an owner of the Kidney Centre in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Shah was involved in the kidnapping and detention of, and removal of kidneys from, Pakistani laborers. Shah was arrested by Pakistani authorities in connection with an October 2016 incident in which 24 individuals from Punjab were found to be held against their will. Impoverished and illiterate Pakistanis from the countryside were reportedly lured to Rawalpindi with the promise of a job, and imprisoned for weeks. Doctors from the Kidney Centre were allegedly planning to steal their kidneys in order to sell them for a large profit. Police state that one of the accused arrested in connection with the events estimated that more than 400 people were imprisoned in the apartment at various times.

    Gulnara Karimova: Gulnara Karimova (Karimova), daughter of former Uzbekistan leader Islam Karimov, headed a powerful organized crime syndicate that leveraged state actors to expropriate businesses, monopolize markets, solicit bribes, and administer extortion rackets. In July 2017, the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office charged Karimova with directly abetting the criminal activities of an organized crime group whose assets were worth over $1.3 billion. Karimova was also charged with hiding foreign currency through various means, including the receipt of payoffs in the accounts of offshore companies controlled by an organized criminal group, the illegal sale of radio frequencies and land parcels, siphoning off state funds through fraudulent dividend payments and stock sales, the illegal removal of cash, the non-collection of currency earnings, and the import of goods at inflated prices. Karimova was also found guilty of embezzlement of state funds, theft, tax evasion, and concealment of documents. Karimova laundered the proceeds of corruption back to her own accounts through a complex network of subsidiary companies and segregated portfolio funds. Karimova's targeting of successful businesses to maximize her gains and enrich herself in some cases destroyed Uzbek competitors. Due in part to Karimova's corrupt activities in the telecom sector alone, Uzbeks paid some of the highest rates in the world for cellular service.

    Angel Rondon Rijo: Angel Rondon Rijo (Rondon) is a politically connected businessman and lobbyist in the Dominican Republic who funneled money from Odebrecht, a Brazilian construction company, to Dominican officials, who in turn awarded Odebrecht projects to build highways, dams, and other projects. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Odebrecht is a Brazil-based global construction conglomerate that has pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and agreed to a criminal fine of $4.5 billion. In 2017, Rondon was arrested by Dominican authorities and charged with corruption for the bribes paid by Odebrecht.

    Artem Chayka: Artem Chayka (Chayka) is the son of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and has leveraged his father's position and ability to award his subordinates to unfairly win state-owned assets and contracts and put pressure on business competitors. In 2014, reconstruction of a highway began, and Chayka's competitor for supplying materials to the project suddenly fell under prosecutorial scrutiny. An anonymous complaint letter with a fake name initiated a government investigation against the competitor. Government inspectors did not produce any documents confirming the legality of the inspections, and did not inform subjects of the investigation of their rights. Traffic police were deployed along the route to the competitor, weight control stations were suddenly dispatched, and trees were dug up and left to block entrances. The competitor was forced to shut down, leaving Chayka in a position to non-competitively work on the highway project. Also in 2014, Chayka bid on a state-owned stone and gravel company, and was awarded the contract. His competitor contested the results and filed a lawsuit. Prosecutors thereafter raided his home. After Chayka's competitor withdrew the lawsuit, prosecutors dropped all charges.

    Gao Yan: Gao Yan (Gao) was the Beijing Public Security Bureau Chaoyang Branch director. During Gao's tenure, human rights activist Cao Shunli was detained at Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau Chaoyang Branch where, in March 2014, Cao fell into a coma and died from organ failure, her body showing signs of emaciation and neglect. Cao had been arrested after attempting to board a flight to attend human rights training in Geneva, Switzerland. She was refused visitation by her lawyer, and was refused medical treatment while she suffered from tuberculosis.

    Sergey Kusiuk: Sergey Kusiuk (Kusiuk) was commander of an elite Ukrainian police unit, the Berkut. Ukraine's Special Investigations Department investigating crimes against activists identified Kusiuk as a leader of an attack on peaceful protesters on November 30, 2013, while in charge of 290 Berkut officers, many of whom took part in the beating of activists. Kusiuk has been named by the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's Office as an individual who took part in the killings of activists on Kyiv's Independence Square in February 2014. Kusiuk ordered the destruction of documentation related to the events, and has fled Ukraine and is now in hiding in Moscow, Russia, where he was identified dispersing protesters as part of a Russian riot police unit in June 2017.

    Julio Antonio Juarez Ramirez: Julio Antonio Juarez Ramirez (Juarez) is a Guatemalan Congressman accused of ordering an attack in which two journalists were killed and another injured. Guatemalan prosecutors and a UN-sponsored commission investigating corruption in Guatemala allege that Juarez hired hit men to kill Prensa Libre correspondent Danilo Efrain Zapan Lopez, whose reporting had hurt Juarez's plan to run for reelection. Fellow journalist Federico Benjamin Salazar of Radio Nuevo Mundo was also killed in the attack and is considered a collateral victim. Another journalist was wounded in the attack.

    Yankuba Badjie: Yankuba Badjie (Badjie) was appointed as the Director General of The Gambia's NIA in December 2013 and is alleged to have presided over abuses throughout his tenure. During Badjie's tenure as Director General, abuses were prevalent and routine within the NIA, consisting of physical trauma and other mistreatment. In April 2016, Badjie oversaw the detention and murder of Solo Sandeng, a member of the political opposition. In February 2017, Badjie was charged along with eight subordinates with Sandeng's murder. Prior to becoming Director General, Badjie served as the NIA Deputy Director General for Operations. Prior to becoming a member of the NIA's senior leadership, Badjie led a paramilitary group known as the Junglers to the NIA's headquarters to beat a prisoner for approximately three hours, leaving the prisoner unconscious and with broken hands. The following day, Badjie and the Junglers returned to beat the prisoner again, leaving him on the verge of death.

    Visa Restrictions

    Although no visa restrictions were imposed under the Act during the first year of its enactment, persons designated pursuant to the executive order may be subject to the visa restrictions articulated in Sec. 2. Sec. 2 contains restrictions pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 8693, which establishes a mechanism for imposing visa restrictions on Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs) designated under the executive order and certain other executive orders, as well as individuals designated otherwise for travel bans in UN Security Council resolutions. In addition, the Department of State continues to take action, as appropriate, to implement authorities pursuant to which it can impose visa restrictions on those responsible for human rights violations and corruption, including Presidential Proclamations 7750 and 8697, and Section 7031(c) of the FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Department of State continues to make visa ineligibility determinations pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including Section 212(a)(3)(E) which makes individuals who have participated in acts of genocide or committed acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, and other human rights violations ineligible for visas.

    Termination of Sanctions

    No sanctions imposed under the Act were terminated.

    Efforts To Encourage Governments of Other Countries To Impose Sanctions Similar to Those Authorized by the Act

    The United States is committed to encouraging other countries to impose sanctions on a similar basis to those provided for by the Act. The Departments of State and Treasury have consulted closely with United Kingdom and Canadian government counterparts over the last year to encourage development and implementation of statutes similar to the Act by those governments. Both countries have enacted similar laws. The Departments of State and Treasury shared information with various foreign partners regarding sanctions and other actions that might be taken against persons pursuant to the Act, as implemented by the E.O., in parallel with other governments' relevant authorities.

    Manisha Singh, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02070 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Modification to Previously Published Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA is publishing this notice to advise the public of a modification to the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and notice of opportunity for public comment published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2014, at 79 FR 22177. Specifically, FAA is withdrawing Wildlife Fence Project from the scope of the EA, and the project will be subject instead to a discrete environmental review.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Parks Preston, Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-6799.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport (PUJ) is located outside Atlanta, Georgia, in the town of Dallas, Georgia. Paulding County and the Paulding County Airport Authority (PCAA) own the airport. PUJ opened in 2008 and is designated as a general aviation airport. An EA for the construction of PUJ was completed in 2005.

    In September 2013, the PCAA submitted an application to the FAA requesting an Airport Operating Certificate under title 14 Code of Regulations, Part 139. A Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate allows the airport to accommodate scheduled passenger-carrying operations, commonly referred to as “commercial service.” In November 2013, several Paulding County residents filed a Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of two categorical exclusions (CATEXs) issued by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), as authorized by the FAA's State Block Grant Program, for airfield improvement projects. The petitioners argued that the two projects were connected to the proposed introduction of commercial service at PUJ. On December 23, 2013, the petitioners and the FAA entered into a settlement agreement under which the FAA agreed to prepare, at a minimum, an EA for the proposed Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate and all connected actions. The FAA is currently in the process of preparing that EA (current EA). While the settlement agreement contemplated that the current EA would include all actions connected with the proposed issuance of the Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate, the FAA opted to include in the current EA all reasonably foreseeable airport improvement projects, whether or not connected with the proposed introduction of commercial service.

    On April 21, 2014, the FAA published a “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment” in the Federal Register, 79 FR 22177. The Notice of Intent identified all of the projects intended to be reviewed in the EA, including “Install approximately 19,000 linear feet of wildlife fencing around the perimeter of the Airport”. PUJ owners now desire to move forward with the Wildlife Fence Project more expeditiously than will be possible if the project remains within the scope of the current EA. The primary need for expediting this project is enhance aviation safety to General Aviaion operations at PUJ.

    The Wildlife Fence has independent utility, is not connected to the Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate, and is therefore not required by the National Environmental Policy Act or the terms of the 2013 settlement agreement to be included in the EA. Accordingly, the current EA will no longer consider direct impacts of the Wildlife Fence Project, but will address potential cumulative impacts associated with the project.

    To satisfy the requirements of FAA Order 1050.1F, GDOT has prepared a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) for the project. The CATEX is available for review at PUJ and online at http://www.paulding.gov/DocumentCenter.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 29, 2018. Parks Preston, Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02132 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket FTA-2018-0001] Notice of Establishment of Emergency Relief Docket for Calendar Year 2018 AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    By this notice, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is establishing an Emergency Relief Docket for calendar year 2018 so grantees and subgrantees affected by national or regional emergencies may request temporary relief from FTA administrative and statutory requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bonnie L. Graves, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 90 Seventh Street, Ste. 15-300, San Francisco, CA 94103; phone: (202) 366-0944, fax: (415) 734-9489, or email, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to title 49 CFR part 601, subpart D, FTA is establishing the Emergency Relief Docket for calendar year 2018. Subsequent to an emergency or major disaster, when FTA requirements impede a grantee or subgrantee's ability to respond to the emergency or major disaster, a grantee or subgrantee may submit a request for relief from specific FTA requirements.

    A grantee or subgrantee may submit a petition for waiver of FTA requirements to www.regulations.gov for posting in the docket (FTA-2018-0001). Alternatively, a grantee or subgrantee may submit a petition in duplicate to the FTA Administrator, via U.S. mail or hand delivery, to: Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590; via telephone, at: (202) 366-4011; via fax, at (202) 366-3472; via email, to [email protected]; or via U.S. mail or hand delivery to the DOT Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, including the information set forth below.

    All petitions for relief from a provision of chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. or FTA administrative requirements must be posted in the docket in order to receive consideration by FTA. The docket is publicly available and can be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, via the internet at www.regulations.gov. Any grantee or subgrantee submitting petitions for relief or comments to the docket must include the agency name (Federal Transit Administration) and docket number FTA-2018-0001. Grantees and subgrantees making submissions to FTA or to the docket by mail or hand delivery should submit two copies. Grantees and subgrantees are strongly encouraged to contact their FTA regional office and notify FTA of the intent to submit a petition to the docket.

    In the event a grantee or subgrantee needs to request immediate relief and does not have access to electronic means to request that relief, the grantee or subgrantee may contact any FTA regional office or FTA headquarters and request that FTA staff submit the petition on its behalf.

    Federal public transportation law at 49 U.S.C. 5324(d) provides that a grant awarded under Section 5324 or under 49 U.S.C. 5307 or 49 U.S.C. 5311 that is made to address an emergency shall be subject to the terms and conditions the Secretary determines are necessary. This language allows FTA to waive statutory, as well as administrative, requirements. Therefore, grantees and subgrantees affected by an emergency or major disaster may request waivers of provisions of chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. when a grantee or subgrantee demonstrates the requirement(s) will limit a grantee's or subgrantee's ability to respond to an emergency. Grantees must follow the procedures set forth below when requesting a waiver of statutory or administrative requirements.

    A petition for relief shall:

    (a) Identify the grantee or subgrantee and its geographic location;

    (b) Identify the section of chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C., or the FTA policy statement, circular, guidance document and/or rule from which the grantee or subgrantee seeks relief;

    (c) Specifically address how a requirement in chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C., or an FTA requirement in a policy statement, circular, agency guidance or rule will limit a grantee's or subgrantee's ability to respond to an emergency or disaster; and

    (d) Specify if the petition for relief is one-time or ongoing, and if ongoing identify the time period for which the relief is requested. The time period may not exceed three months; however, additional time may be requested through a second petition for relief.

    A petition for relief from administrative requirements will be conditionally granted for a period of three (3) business days from the date it is submitted to the Emergency Relief Docket. FTA will review the petition after the expiration of the three business days and review any comments submitted thereto. FTA may contact the grantee or subgrantee that submitted the request for relief, or any party that submits comments to the docket, to obtain more information prior to making a decision. FTA shall then post a decision to the Emergency Relief Docket. FTA's decision will be based on whether the petition meets the criteria for use of these emergency procedures, the substance of the request, and the comments submitted regarding the petition. If FTA does not respond to the request for relief to the docket within three business days, the grantee or subgrantee may assume its petition is granted for a period not to exceed three months until and unless FTA states otherwise.

    A petition for relief from statutory requirements will not be conditionally granted and requires a written decision from the FTA Administrator.

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 604.2(f) of FTA's Charter Rule, grantees and subgrantees may assist with evacuations or other movement of people that might otherwise be considered charter transportation when that transportation is in response to an emergency declared by the President, governor, or mayor, or in an emergency requiring immediate action prior to a formal declaration, even if a formal declaration of an emergency is not eventually made by the President, governor or mayor. Therefore, a request for relief is not necessary in order to provide this service. However, if the emergency lasts more than 45 calendar days, the grantee or subgrantee shall follow the procedures set out in this notice.

    FTA reserves the right to reconsider any decision made pursuant to these emergency procedures based upon its own initiative, based upon information or comments received subsequent to the three business day comment period, or at the request of a grantee or subgrantee upon denial of a request for relief. FTA shall notify the grantee or subgrantee if it plans to reconsider a decision. FTA decision letters, either granting or denying a petition, shall be posted in the Emergency Relief Docket and shall reference the document number of the petition to which it relates.

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    K. Jane Williams, Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02083 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Bank Activities and Operations; Investment in Bank Premises AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Bank Activities and Operations; Investment in Bank Premises.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB review.

    DATES:

    You should submit written comments by March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0204, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by email to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0204, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The OCC requests that OMB extend its approval of this collection.

    Title: Bank Activities and Operations; Investment in Bank Premises.

    OMB Control No.: 1557-0204.

    Description: The information collection requirements ensure that institutions conduct their operations in a safe and sound manner and in accordance with applicable federal banking statutes and regulations. The information is necessary for regulatory and examination purposes.

    The information collection requirements are as follows:

    • 12 CFR 5.37 (Investment in national bank or federal savings association premises). A national bank or federal savings association may invest in banking premises and other premises-related investments, loans, or indebtedness by filing an application for prior approval whenever its investment in bank premises will cause it to exceed its capital stock. The application must describe the present and proposed investment and the business reason for exceeding the limit. A bank with a composite 1 or 2 CAMELS rating entering a transaction that increases its aggregate bank premises investment to not more than 150 percent of its capital and surplus may proceed without prior OCC approval, but must provide an after-the-fact notice.

    • 12 CFR 7.1014 (Sale of money orders at nonbanking outlets). A national bank may designate bonded agents to sell the bank's money orders at nonbanking outlets. The responsibility of both the bank and its agent should be defined in a written agreement setting forth the duties of both parties and providing for remuneration of the agent.

    • 12 CFR 7.2000(b) (Corporate governance procedures—Other sources of guidance). A national bank shall designate in its bylaws the body of law selected for its corporate governance procedures.

    • 12 CFR 7.2004 (Honorary directors or advisory boards). Any listing of a national bank's honorary or advisory directors must distinguish between those directors and the bank's board of directors or indicate their advisory status.

    • 12 CFR 7.2014(b) (Indemnification of institution-affiliated parties—Administrative proceeding or civil actions not initiated by a federal agency). A national bank shall designate in its bylaws the body of law selected for making indemnification payments.

    • 12 CFR 7.2024(a) (Staggered terms for national bank directors). Any national bank may adopt bylaws that provide for staggering the terms of its directors. National banks shall provide the OCC with copies of any bylaws so amended.

    • 12 CFR 7.2024(c) (Size of bank board). A national bank seeking to increase the number of its directors must notify the OCC any time the proposed size would exceed 25 directors.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,294.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 561 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    The OCC issued a notice for 60 days comment regarding this collection on November 21, 2017, 82 FR 55486. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: January 29, 2018. Karen Solomon, Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02057 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; International Regulation AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “International Regulation.”

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0102, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include 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 title 44 requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each renewal of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the OCC is publishing notice of the renewal of the collection of information set forth in this document.

    Title: International Regulation—Part 28.

    OMB Control No.: 1557-0102.

    Description: This submission covers an existing regulation and involves no change to the regulation or to the information collection requirements. The OCC requests only that OMB extend its approval of the information collection.

    12 CFR 28.3 Filing Requirements for Foreign Operations of a National Bank—Notice Requirement

    A national bank shall notify the OCC when it files an application, notice, or report with the FRB 1 to establish or open a foreign branch, or acquire or divest of an interest in, or close, an Edge corporation, Agreement corporation, foreign bank, or other foreign organization; or opens a foreign branch, and no application or notice is required by the FRB for such transaction.

    1 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    In practice, the OCC also has required an application pursuant to § 28.3(c) from a national bank seeking to join a foreign exchange, clearinghouse, or similar type of organization. In lieu of a notice, the OCC may accept a copy of an application, notice, or report submitted to another federal agency that covers the proposed action and contains substantially the same information required by the OCC. A national bank shall furnish the OCC with any additional information the OCC may require in connection with the national bank's foreign operations.

    12 CFR 28.14(c) Limitations Based upon Capital of a Foreign Bank—Aggregation

    A foreign bank shall aggregate business transacted by all federal branches and agencies with the business transacted by all state branches and agencies controlled by the foreign bank in determining its compliance with limitations based upon the capital of the foreign bank. A foreign bank shall designate one federal branch or agency office in the United States to maintain consolidated information so that the OCC can monitor compliance.

    12 CFR 28.15(d), (d)(1), (d)(2), and (f) Capital Equivalency Deposits

    A foreign bank should require its depository bank to segregate its capital equivalency deposits on the depository bank's books and records. The instruments making up the capital equivalency deposit that are placed in safekeeping at a depository bank to satisfy a foreign bank's capital equivalency deposit requirement must be maintained pursuant to an agreement prescribed by the OCC that shall be a written agreement entered into with the OCC. Each federal branch or agency shall maintain a capital equivalency account and keep records of the amount of liabilities requiring capital equivalency coverage in a manner and form prescribed by the OCC. A foreign bank's capital equivalency deposits may not be reduced in value below the minimum required for that branch or agency without the prior approval of the OCC, but in no event may the value fall below the statutory minimum.

    12 CFR 28.16(c) Deposit-Taking by an Uninsured Federal Branch—Application for an Exemption

    A foreign bank may apply to the OCC for an exemption to permit an uninsured federal branch to accept or maintain deposit accounts that are not listed in § 28.16(b). The request should describe the types, sources, and estimated amount of such deposits and explain why the OCC should grant an exemption, and how the exemption maintains and furthers the policies described in § 28.16(a).

    12 CFR 28.16(d) Deposit-Taking by an Uninsured Federal Branch—Aggregation of Deposits

    A foreign bank that has more than one federal branch in the same state may aggregate deposits in all of its federal branches in that state, but exclude deposits of other branches, agencies, or wholly owned subsidiaries of the bank. The federal branch shall compute the average amount by using the sum of deposits as of the close of business of the last 30 calendar days ending with, and including, the last day of the calendar quarter, divided by 30. The federal branch shall maintain records of the calculation until its next examination by the OCC.

    12 CFR 28.18(c)(1) Recordkeeping and Reporting—Maintenance of Accounts, Books, and Records

    Each federal branch or agency shall maintain a set of accounts and records reflecting its transactions that are separate from those of the foreign bank and any other branch or agency. The federal branch or agency shall keep a set of accounts and records in English sufficient to permit the OCC to examine the condition of the federal branch or agency and its compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

    12 CFR 28.20(a)(1) Maintenance of Assets—General Rule

    The OCC may require a foreign bank to hold certain assets in the state in which its federal branch or agency is located.

    12 CFR 28.22(e) Reports of Examination

    The federal branch or agency shall send the OCC certification that all of its Reports of Examination have been destroyed or return its Reports of Examination to the OCC.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 52.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,286.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: January 29, 2018. Karen Solomon, Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02056 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Approved Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    Currently, the OCC is finalizing a revision to a regulatory reporting requirement for national banks and federal savings associations titled, “Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0319, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0319, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the OCC's website under News and Issuances (http://www.occ.treas.gov/tools-forms/forms/bank-operations/stress-test-reporting.html).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OCC is requesting comment on the following revision to an approved information collection:

    Title: Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

    OMB Control No.: 1557-0319.

    Description: Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 1 (Dodd-Frank Act) requires certain financial companies, including national banks and federal savings associations, to conduct annual stress tests 2 and requires the primary financial regulatory agency 3 of those financial companies to issue regulations implementing the stress test requirements.4 A national bank or federal savings association is a “covered institution” and therefore subject to the stress test requirements if its total consolidated assets are more than $10 billion. Under section 165(i)(2), a covered institution is required to submit to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and to its primary financial regulatory agency a report at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the primary financial regulatory agency may require.5 On October 9, 2012, the OCC published in the Federal Register a final rule implementing the section 165(i)(2) annual stress test requirement.6 This rule describes the reports and information collections required to meet the reporting requirements under section 165(i)(2). Information collected will be kept private to the extent permitted by law.

    1 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, July 2010.

    2 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(A).

    3 12 U.S.C. 5301(12).

    4 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(C).

    5 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(B).

    6 77 FR 61238 (October 9, 2012) (codified at 12 CFR part 46).

    In 2012, the OCC first implemented the reporting templates referenced in the final rule. See 77 FR 49485 (August 16, 2012) and 77 FR 66663 (November 6, 2012). The OCC is now revising them as described below.

    The OCC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered institutions and to provide forward-looking information to the OCC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The OCC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered institution. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered institution's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.

    The OCC recognizes that many covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit reports using Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) reporting form FR Y-14A.7 The OCC also recognizes the Board has modified the FR Y-14A and, to the extent practical, the OCC has kept its reporting requirements consistent with the Board's FR Y-14A in order to minimize burden on covered institutions.8 The OCC is revising its reporting requirements to mirror the Board's FR Y-14A for covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. In addition to the changes that parallel the Board's changes to the FR Y-14A, the OCC is also making two other changes. First, the OCC is modifying the OCC Supplemental Schedule. Second, the OCC is allowing federal savings associations to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to subsidiaries of large, noncomplex holding companies, as defined by the Board. These changes are described in more detail below.

    7http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms.

    8 82 FR 59608 (December 15, 2017).

    Revisions to Reporting Templates That Mirror Changes by the Board

    The revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of the following:

    • Eliminating two schedules, the Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule and Retail Repurchase Exposures Schedule;

    • Adding one item to the counterparty worksheet of the summary schedule to collect information of Funding Valuation Adjustments (FVAs) for firms subject to the Global Market Shock;

    • Modifying instructions to clarify reporting of “Credit Loss Portion” and “Non-Credit Loss Portion” information for AFS/HTM worksheets in the summary schedule.

    OCC Supplemental Schedule

    In 2017 the OCC introduced a Supplemental Schedule that collects additional information not included in the FR Y-14A. The revisions include modifications to the OCC Supplemental Schedule. These modifications to the Supplemental Schedule consist of clarifying instructions as well as adding, deleting, and modifying existing data items. The total number of items in the Supplemental Schedule will be reduced by approximately half, reflecting the OCC's commitment to reducing the reporting burden associated with this schedule. In particular, the revisions delete existing data items on Allowance for Loan and Lease Loss data and Provisions data. The OCC periodically reviews its data collection to identify fields whose collection are no longer necessary to support the OCC's supervisory objectives, and the allowance and provision fields were identified for elimination as part of this review. The revisions also eliminate the materiality thresholds for the reporting of certain items. Only national banks that are subsidiaries of large, complex firms, as defined by the Board, are required to complete the Supplemental Schedule, and the OCC believes that it is appropriate and manageable for these larger national banks to report these items.

    Federal Savings Associations

    Beginning in 2017, the Board and the OCC allowed institutions that were subsidiaries of large, non-complex holding companies, as defined by the Board, to comply with simplified reporting requirements and not complete certain subschedules of the FR Y-14A and DFAST-14A reporting forms. The revisions allow federal savings associations that qualify as over $50 billion covered institutions to comply with these simplified reporting requirements.

    Savings and loan holding companies are not currently required to submit the Board's FR Y-14A reporting forms. Similarly, the Board's capital plan rule includes a definition for “large and noncomplex bank holding compan[ies]” but does not include a parallel definition for savings and loan holding companies. Accordingly, savings and loan holding companies and federal savings associations that have the same characteristics as other large and noncomplex firms would not technically qualify for the simplified reporting requirements. The revisions modify the DFAST-14A reporting forms and instructions to provide that all federal savings associations may comply with these simplified reporting requirements. This change promotes parity between national banks and federal savings associations that have similar size profiles and economic characteristics.

    Response to Comments

    The OCC received one comment from a trade association. The commenter suggested that the effective date for changes to the OCC reporting templates align with changes to the Board's reporting forms. The commenter also suggested that there should be a minimum of six months between the publication of final changes to the reporting templates and the effective date of the changes. According to the commenter, it is important to factor in the amount of time necessary to resolve clarifying questions.

    The OCC recognizes the challenges with implementing changes in a timely and controlled manner. The OCC continues to balance the need to collect additional information with the objective of providing as much time as is feasible in advance of implementation. With respect to the changes in this notice, the OCC has sought to align effective dates for reporting requirements to the extent practical with synonymous changes to the Board's Y-14A. For example, the OCC is eliminating the Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule and the Retail Repurchase Schedule to parallel the Board's changes to the Y-14A. The addition of one item to the counterparty worksheet to collect information on FVAs is consistent with changes made by the Board. The OCC believes that many of the reporting template changes are either burden-neutral or burden-reducing. In addition to eliminating the two schedules referenced above, the OCC is also reducing the number of data items in the Supplemental Schedule by approximately half. The OCC continually seeks to clarify and improve the DFAST-14A reporting instructions; nevertheless, as is the case with all reporting templates, there will always be clarifying questions from the industry, and the OCC seeks to respond to questions in a timely manner.

    The commenter also suggested that the technical instructions accompanying any changes in the reporting templates be subject to public notice and comment. The OCC will continue to publish technical instructions as early as feasible. The technical changes do not alter the burden associated with the reporting forms and do not impose additional requirements. The technical instructions provide procedures for the submission of DFAST-14A data, covering matters such as file format and other technical specifications. While the OCC publishes the technical instructions as early as possible, the OCC and the Board have historically not published the technical instructions for notice and comment.

    The commenter also questioned the need for the OCC Supplemental Schedule. The commenter suggested that the Supplemental Schedule did not serve a supervisory purpose. The commenter also opposed the elimination of the materiality thresholds for certain items, which the commenter believed would increase the reporting burden.

    The OCC considers those items included in the OCC Supplemental Schedule as material risks that are necessary for monitoring and assessing a covered institution's capital adequacy and capital planning process. By requiring only subsidiaries of large, complex firms, as defined by the Board, to complete this schedule, these requirements now align with reporting exceptions for a number of summary and operational risk subschedules. To minimize reporting burden the OCC has reduced the number of Supplemental Schedule reporting items in half as part of its process to continually ensure that only key risk elements are included within this schedule. As these items represent key risks, relatively smaller amounts of exposures within individual firms could represent material aggregate risks to the banking system. Therefore, the OCC has substituted materiality thresholds for reporting exemptions based on the size and complexity of the parent holding company, thereby aligning the reporting exceptions with a number of summary and operational risk subschedules.

    Regarding data collection challenges posed by the Supplemental Schedule for covered institutions, as noted in the instructions, covered institutions that cannot use existing models and methodologies to furnish requested information on the OCC Supplemental Schedule may use allocations, expert judgment, or other methods for projections of balances, losses, and allowances if data is not available at the requested level of granularity. Covered institutions should supply appropriate documentation explaining their approach.

    Other Changes

    The OCC proposed to eliminate references to the term “extraordinary items” to align with Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Subtopic 255-30. The Board has decided to delay this change with respect to its FR Y-14A; therefore, in order to promote consistency between the OCC DFAST-14A and the FR Y-14A, the OCC will delay this change until further notice.

    Type of Review: Revision.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 26.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,949 hours.

    The OCC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14 reporting templates to submit to the Board will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments continue to be invited on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: January 29, 2018. Karen Solomon, Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02060 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Customer Complaint Form AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    Currently, the OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of an existing collection titled “Customer Complaint Form.”

    DATES:

    You should submit written comments by April 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0232, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include 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 title 44 requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each renewal of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the OCC is publishing notice of the renewal of the collection of information set forth in this document.

    Title: Customer Complaint Form.

    OMB Control No.: 1557-0232.

    Description: The customer complaint form was developed as a courtesy for customers who contact the OCC's Consumer Assistance Group (CAG) and wish to file a formal, written complaint. The form offers a template for consumers to use to focus their issues and identify the information necessary to provide a complete picture of their concerns. Use of the form is entirely voluntary; however, use of the form helps to avoid the processing delays associated with incomplete complaints and allows CAG to process complaints more efficiently.

    CAG uses the information included in a completed form to create a record of the consumer's contact, capture information that can be used to resolve the consumer's issues, and provide a database of information that is incorporated into the OCC's supervisory process.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 830.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: January 29, 2018. Karen Solomon, Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02054 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0171] Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Individualized Tutorial Assistance AGENCY:

    Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information through www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20503 or sent through electronic mail to [email protected] Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0171 in any correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email [email protected] Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0171” in any correspondence.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 3019.

    Title: Application for Individualized Tutorial Assistance, VA Form 22-1990t).

    OMB Control Number: 2900-0171.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: VA Form 22-1990t for Tutorial assistance is a supplementary allowance payable on a monthly basis for up to 12 months. The student must be training at one-half time or more in a post-secondary degree program, and must have a deficiency in a unit course or subject that is required as part of, or prerequisite to, his or her approved program. The student uses VA Form 22-1990t, Application and Enrollment Certification for Individualized Tutorial Assistance to apply for the supplemental allowance.

    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 Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published at 82, FR 223, on November 21, 2017 at page 55489-55490.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 180 hours.

    Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: 30 minutes.

    Frequency of Response: Once Annually.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 359.

    By direction of the Secretary.

    Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Department Clearance Officer, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02075 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0159] Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Matured Endowment Notification AGENCY:

    Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information through www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20503 or sent through electronic mail to oira_submissio[email protected] Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0159” in any correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email [email protected] Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0159” in any correspondence.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 1917 and 1952, and 38 CFR 6.69.

    Title: Matured Endowment Notification, VA Form 29-5767.

    OMB Control Number: 2900-0159.

    Type of Review: Reinstatement of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: This form is used to notify the insured that his/her endowment policy has matured, and to elicit their desired disposition of the proceeds of the policy. The information on the form is required by law, 38 U.S.C. 1917 and 1952, and 38 CFR 6.69.

    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 Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 20, 2017, Volume 82, No. 181, pages 44027—44028.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 2,867 hours.

    Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: 20 minutes.

    Frequency of Response: One time.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,600.

    By direction of the Secretary.

    Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Department Clearance Officer, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02076 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0110] Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Assumption Approval and/or Release From Personal Liability to the Government on a Home Loan AGENCY:

    Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information through www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20503 or sent through electronic mail to [email protected] Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0110” in any correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email [email protected] Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0110” in any correspondence.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 3713(a) and 3714 and 3702(b)(2).

    Title: Application for Assumption Approval and/or Release from Personal Liability to the Government on a Home Loan, VA Form 26-6381.

    OMB Control Number: 2900-0110.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: VA Form 26-6381 is completed by Veterans who are selling their homes by assumption rather than requiring purchasers to obtain their own financing to pay off the loan. The data furnished on the form is essential to determinations for assumption approval, release of liability, and substitution of entitlement in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 3713(a) and 3714 and 3702(b)(2).

    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 Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published at 82 FR 229 on November 30, 2017, pages 56856 and 56857.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 42 hours.

    Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: 10 minutes.

    Frequency of Response: One time.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250 per year.

    By direction of the Secretary.

    Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Department Clearance Officer, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-02077 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    83 23 Friday, February 2, 2018 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Executive Order 13823 of January 30, 2018 Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Findings. (a) Consistent with long-standing law of war principles and applicable law, the United States may detain certain persons captured in connection with an armed conflict for the duration of the conflict.

    (b) Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and other authorities authorized the United States to detain certain persons who were a part of or substantially supported al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Today, the United States remains engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, including with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

    (c) The detention operations at the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay are legal, safe, humane, and conducted consistent with United States and international law.

    (d) Those operations are continuing given that a number of the remaining individuals at the detention facility are being prosecuted in military commissions, while others must be detained to protect against continuing, significant threats to the security of the United States, as determined by periodic reviews.

    (e) Given that some of the current detainee population represent the most difficult and dangerous cases from among those historically detained at the facility, there is significant reason for concern regarding their reengagement in hostilities should they have the opportunity.

    Sec. 2. Status of Detention Facilities at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay. (a) Section 3 of Executive Order 13492 of January 22, 2009 (Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities), ordering the closure of detention facilities at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, is hereby revoked.

    (b) Detention operations at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay shall continue to be conducted consistent with all applicable United States and international law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

    (c) In addition, the United States may transport additional detainees to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.

    (d) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies as determined by the Secretary of Defense, recommend policies to the President regarding the disposition of individuals captured in connection with an armed conflict, including policies governing transfer of individuals to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay.

    (e) Unless charged in or subject to a judgment of conviction by a military commission, any detainees transferred to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay after the date of this order shall be subject to the procedures for periodic review established in Executive Order 13567 of March 7, 2011 (Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force), to determine whether continued law of war detention is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.

    Sec. 3. Rules of Construction. (a) Nothing in this order shall prevent the Secretary of Defense from transferring any individual away from the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when appropriate, including to effectuate an order affecting the disposition of that individual issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction.

    (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful permanent residents of the United States, or any persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

    (c) Nothing in this order shall prevent the Attorney General from, as appropriate, investigating, detaining, and prosecuting a terrorist subject to the criminal laws and jurisdiction of the United States.

    Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    Trump.EPS THE WHITE HOUSE, January 30, 2018. [FR Doc. 2018-02261 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] Billing code 3295-F8-P
    83 23 Friday, February 2, 2018 Proposed Rules Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1231099BPP0] RIN 1018-BB73 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; supplemental.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is proposing to establish the 2018-19 hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed in hunting seasons. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population and habitat conditions.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting frameworks by March 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028.

    U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Review of Public Comments and Flyway Council Recommendations section, below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    New Process for the Annual Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations

    As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, 2 years ago we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and provides hunting season dates much earlier than was possible under the old process. The new process makes planning easier for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the development of the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we started promulgating our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations using a new schedule that combines the previously used early- and late-season regulatory processes into a single process. We make decisions for harvest management based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and established harvest strategies and, therefore, can establish migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we used for many years. Under the new process, we develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We then finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer. We provided a detailed overview of the new process in the August 3, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 36308). This proposed rule is the third in a series of proposed and final rules for the establishment of the 2018-19 hunting seasons.

    Regulations Schedule for 2018

    On August 3, 2017, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (82 FR 36308). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2018-19 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in a August 3, 2017, proposed rule. Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under numbered headings. Those headings are:

    1. Ducks A. General Harvest Strategy B. Regulatory Alternatives C. Zones and Split Seasons D. Special Seasons/Species Management i. September Teal Seasons ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons iii. Black Ducks iv. Canvasbacks v. Pintails vi. Scaup vii. Mottled Ducks viii. Wood Ducks ix. Youth Hunt x. Mallard Management Units xi. Other 2. Sea Ducks 3. Mergansers 4. Canada Geese A. Special Early Seasons B. Regular Seasons C. Special Late Seasons 5. White-Fronted Geese 6. Brant 7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese 8. Swans 9. Sandhill Cranes 10. Coots 11. Moorhens and Gallinules 12. Rails 13. Snipe 14. Woodcock 15. Band-Tailed Pigeons 16. Doves 17. Alaska 18. Hawaii 19. Puerto Rico 20. Virgin Islands 21. Falconry 22. Other

    Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.

    The August 3 proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2018-19 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.

    On October 3, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 46011) a second document providing supplemental proposals for migratory bird hunting regulations. The October 3 supplement also provided detailed information on the 2018-19 regulatory schedule and re-announced the SRC and Flyway Council meetings.

    On October 17-18, 2017, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2018-19 regulations for these species.

    This document deals specifically with proposed frameworks for the migratory bird hunting regulations. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, areas, and limits. We have considered all pertinent comments received through November 1, 2017, on the August 3 and October 3, 2017, proposed rulemaking documents in developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain regulations are provided for public comment. The comment period is specified above under DATES. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for migratory game bird hunting in the Federal Register on or around February 28, 2018.

    Population Status and Harvest

    Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our website at https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications/population-status.php.

    We used the following reports: Adaptive Harvest Management, 2018 Hunting Season (September, 2017); American Woodcock Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017); Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017); Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons (August, 2017); Mourning Dove Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017); Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations, 2017 (August, 2017); and Waterfowl Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017).

    Review of Public Comments and Flyway Council Recommendations

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the August 3, 2017, Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting regulations and discussed the regulatory alternatives for the 2018-19 duck hunting season. Comments and recommendations are summarized below and numbered in the order used in the August 3, 2017, proposed rule.

    We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are summarized below. We have included only the numbered items pertaining to issues for which we received recommendations. Consequently, the issues do not follow in successive numerical order.

    We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items in the August 3, 2017, proposed rule.

    General

    Written Comments: A commenter protested the entire migratory bird hunting regulations process, the killing of all migratory birds, and status and habitat data on which the migratory bird hunting regulations are based.

    Service Response: Our long-term objectives continue to include providing opportunities to harvest portions of certain migratory game bird populations and to limit harvests to levels compatible with each population's ability to maintain healthy, viable numbers. Having taken into account the zones of temperature and the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory birds, we believe that the hunting seasons provided for herein are compatible with the current status of migratory bird populations and long-term population goals. Additionally, we are obligated to, and do, give serious consideration to all information received as public comment. While there are problems inherent with any type of representative management of public-trust resources, we believe that the Flyway-Council system of migratory bird management has been a longstanding example of State-Federal cooperative management since its establishment in 1952. However, as always, we continue to seek new ways to streamline and improve the process.

    1. Ducks A. General Harvest Strategy

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended the adoption of the “liberal” regulatory alternative.

    Service Response: We propose to continue using adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2018-19 season. AHM allows sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. We use AHM to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels for duck hunting based on the population status of mallards. We enact other hunting regulations for species of special concern, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails.

    The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the Atlantic Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region). In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California (as based on Canadian Wildlife Service and State-conducted surveys).

    For the 2018-19 season, we recommend continuing to use independent optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern mallards, mid-continent mallards, and western mallards independently, based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision framework for western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 43290) and for eastern mallards in the July 20, 2012, Federal Register (77 FR 42920). Further documentation on how adjustments were made to these decision frameworks can be found at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.

    As we stated in the October 3, 2017, proposed rule, for the 2018-19 hunting season, we are continuing to consider the same regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the “restrictive,” “moderate,” and “liberal” alternatives has remained essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended framework dates have been offered in the “moderate” and “liberal” regulatory alternatives since 2002 (67 FR 47224; July 17, 2002).

    The optimal AHM strategies for mid-continent, eastern, and western mallards for the 2018-19 hunting season were calculated using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each mallard stock; (2) the 2018-19 regulatory alternatives; and (3) current population models and associated weights. Based on “liberal” regulatory alternatives selected for the 2017-18 hunting season, the 2017 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) results of 10.64 million mid-continent mallards and 4.33 million ponds in Prairie Canada, 0.65 million eastern mallards, and 0.98 million western mallards (0.44 million in California-Oregon and 0.54 million in Alaska), the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the “liberal” alternative. Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection of the “liberal” regulatory alternative for the 2018-19 season and propose to adopt the “liberal” regulatory alternative, as described in the October 3, 2017, Federal Register.

    C. Zones and Split Seasons

    Written Comments: The Colorado Parks and Wildlife requested a minor boundary change between the east and west zones in the Pacific Flyway portion of the State due to unintended law enforcement issues. The existing zones split Elkhead Reservoir.

    Service Response: We agree. The change is very minor and aids in hunter compliance by placing the entire reservoir into one zone.

    D. Special Seasons/Species Management i. September Teal Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council requested that Florida be allowed to hold an experimental September teal-only season for an additional year (2018), to allow sufficient time to incorporate the 2017 results into a final report evaluating impacts to non-target species.

    The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that teal seasons in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky be made operational beginning in 2018-19. They further recommended that Tennessee be granted an additional year of experimental status for their teal season to collect an additional year of data to support evaluations and that Iowa be allowed to retain the option to select a September 5-day duck season or an operational early teal season for the 2018-19 hunting seasons. Iowa's decision would remain in effect under current duck season frameworks.

    The Central Flyway Council recommended that Nebraska's experimental September teal season be made operational for the 2018-19 hunting season.

    Service Response: For the 2018-19 season, we will utilize the 2017 breeding population estimate of 7.9 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area and the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy. Thus, a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways is appropriate for the 2018-19 season.

    We agree with the Atlantic Flyway's request to extend Florida's experimental teal-only season through 2018, to allow the State sufficient time to prepare a full report on the results of its study on impacts to non-target species.

    We also agree with the Mississippi Flyway's request that September teal seasons in Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky be made operational beginning in 2018-19. Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin submitted a report that summarized results from their 3-year experimental September teal season conducted during 2014-16. Results from those studies demonstrated that nontarget species attempt rates were below the acceptable rate of 25 percent (range 4.6 to 6.6 percent). Although Michigan and Wisconsin each had one year in which the nontarget harvest rate exceeded the acceptable rate of 10 percent, the harvest rate in the other 2 years of the studies in each State were well below 10 percent (range 4.0 to 6.7 for Michigan and 0.0 for both years in Wisconsin), and thus we believe that production (“northern”) States in the Mississippi Flyway have satisfied the experimental criteria for nontarget species harvest rates. None of the three States opened an experimental season prior to sunrise; therefore, a comparison of nontarget species attempt and harvest rates during pre- and post-sunrise periods was not made. Furthermore, we concur that Iowa shall be allowed to retain the option to select either a September 5-day duck season or an operational September teal season for the 2018-19 hunting season. The Service previously agreed to allow Iowa to retain these options when the State suspended its special September 5-day duck season in order to conduct a 3-year experimental September teal season along with other production States in the Flyway. When Iowa chooses either of these options for the 2018-19 season, that decision will remain in effect for future years under current duck season frameworks. With regard to the results from the 3-year experimental September teal-only season that follows the operational September teal-wood duck season in Kentucky, the nontarget species attempt rate for both the pre-sunrise (7.7 percent) and post-sunrise (13.4 percent) periods were below the acceptable rate of 25 percent. Similarly, the nontarget species harvest rate for both the pre-sunrise (5.0 percent) and post-sunrise (6.0 percent) periods were below the acceptable rate of 10 percent. Therefore, we agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's request to make the September teal-only season in Kentucky operational. Finally, we agree with the Mississippi Flyway's request to extend Tennessee's experimental teal-only season through 2018, to allow the Service sufficient time to review a report recently submitted by Tennessee that contains results from a fourth experimental year conducted in September 2017. The Service will examine results from all 4 years of the study to determine whether Tennessee has met experimental criteria with regard to nontarget species attempt and harvest rates.

    We also agree with the Central Flyway Council's recommendation regarding Nebraska's experimental September teal season. In 2014, we allowed States in northern (“production”) areas of the Central and Mississippi Flyways to open, on an experimental basis, September teal seasons similar to those offered since 1969 to southern (“non-production”) States. For these experimental seasons, each State entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Service that specified sample sizes (i.e., observations of hunter performance) and decision criteria that would need to be met for these experimental seasons to become operational. Hunters' rates of attempting to shoot nontarget waterfowl species and the harvest rate of nontarget species could not exceed certain levels. Nebraska collected 4 years of information and met the sample-size requirements. The attempt rates at nontarget species (pre-sunrise period: 7.9 percent; post-sunrise period: 13.6 percent; both periods combined: 12.4 percent) were below our acceptable rate of 25 percent. Further, the harvest rate of nontarget species was 3 percent, below the acceptable rate of 10 percent. Therefore, we support granting operational status to September teal seasons in the northern portion of Nebraska.

    iii. Black Ducks

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended that the Service continue to follow the International Black Duck AHM Strategy for the 2018-19 season.

    Service Response: In 2012, we adopted the International Black Duck AHM Strategy (77 FR 49868; August 17, 2012). The formal strategy is the result of 14 years of technical and policy decisions developed and agreed upon by both Canadian and U.S. agencies and waterfowl managers. The strategy clarifies what harvest levels each country will manage for and reduces conflicts over country-specific regulatory policies. Further, the strategy allows for attainment of fundamental objectives of black duck management: Resource conservation; perpetuation of hunting tradition; and equitable access to the black duck resource between Canada and the United States while accommodating the fundamental sources of uncertainty, partial controllability and observability, structural uncertainty, and environmental variation. The underlying model performance is assessed annually, with a comprehensive evaluation of the entire strategy (objectives and model set) planned after 6 years. A copy of the strategy is available at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/BlackDuckInternationalHarvestStrategy.pdf.

    For the 2018-19 season, the optimal country-specific regulatory strategies were calculated using: (1) The black duck harvest objective (98 percent of long-term cumulative harvest); (2) 2018-19 country-specific regulatory alternatives; (3) current parameter estimates for mallard competition and additive mortality; and (4) 2017 survey results of 0.54 million breeding black ducks and 0.44 million breeding mallards in the core survey area. The optimal regulatory choices for the 2018-19 season are the “liberal” package in Canada and the “moderate” package in the United States.

    iv. Canvasbacks

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended a full season for canvasbacks with a 2-bird daily bag limit. Season lengths would be 60 days in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, 74 days in the Central Flyway, and 107 days in the Pacific Flyway.

    Service Response: As we discussed in the March 28, 2016, final rule (81 FR 17302), the canvasback harvest strategy that we had relied on until 2015 was not viable under our new regulatory process because it required biological information that was not yet available at the time a decision on season structure needed to be made. We do not yet have a new harvest strategy to propose for use in guiding canvasback harvest management in the future. However, we have worked with technical staff of the four Flyway Councils to develop a decision framework (hereafter, decision support tool) that relies on the best biological information available to develop recommendations for annual canvasback harvest regulations. The decision support tool uses available information (1994-2014) on canvasback population size, growth rate, survival, and harvest and a discrete logistic growth model to derive an optimal harvest policy with an objective of maximum sustained yield. The decision support tool calls for a closed season when the observed population is below 460,000, a 1-bird daily bag limit when the observed breeding population is between 460,000 and 480,000, and a 2-bird daily bag limit when the observed population is greater than 480,000. Given that the 2017 canvasback breeding population estimate was 733,000 birds, we support the Flyways' recommendations for a 2-canvasback daily bag limit for the 2018-19 season.

    v. Pintails

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended a full season for pintails, consisting of a 2-bird daily bag limit and a 60-day season in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, a 74-day season in the Central Flyway, and a 107-day season in the Pacific Flyway.

    Service Response: The current derived pintail harvest strategy was adopted by the Service and Flyway Councils in 2010 (75 FR 44856; July 29, 2010). For the 2018-19 season, an optimal regulatory strategy for pintails was calculated with: (1) An objective of maximizing long-term cumulative harvest, including a closed-season constraint of 1.75 million birds; (2) the regulatory alternatives and associated predicted harvest; and (3) current population models and their relative weights. Based on a “liberal” regulatory alternative with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the 2017-18 season, and the 2017 survey results of 2.89 million pintails observed at a mean latitude of 56.7 degrees, the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways for the 2018-19 hunting season is the “liberal” alternative with a 2-bird daily bag limit.

    vi. Scaup

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended use of the “moderate” regulation package, consisting of a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag in the Atlantic Flyway and a 3-bird daily bag in the Mississippi Flyway, a 74-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit in the Central Flyway, and an 86-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit in the Pacific Flyway.

    Service Response: In 2008, we adopted and implemented a new scaup harvest strategy (73 FR 43290 on July 24, 2008, and 73 FR 51124 on August 29, 2008) with initial “restrictive,” “moderate,” and “liberal” regulatory packages adopted for each Flyway.

    For scaup, optimal regulatory strategies for the 2018-19 season were calculated using: (1) An objective to achieve 95 percent of long-term cumulative harvest, (2) current scaup regulatory alternatives, and (3) updated model parameters and weights. Based on a “moderate” regulatory alternative selected in 2017, and the 2017 survey results of 4.37 million scaup, the optimal regulatory choice for the 2018-19 season for all four Flyways is the “moderate” regulatory alternative.

    4. Canada Geese A. Special Early Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended changing the zone boundaries in North Dakota, modifying the boundary of the “Remainder of State” zone to form a new zone in the western portion of the State.

    Service Response: We support the Central Flyway Council's recommendation. The change in zone boundaries will allow the State to increase harvest of resident Canada geese in eastern portions of the State, where goose/human conflicts need to be alleviated, without negatively impacting hunter opportunities in western portions of the State.

    B. Regular Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council revised its North Atlantic Population (NAP) Harvest Strategy by (1) eliminating the “very restrictive” regulatory option, and (2) incorporating uncertainty around breeding population estimates into the annual regulatory option decision. Under the revised strategy, the Council recommended adoption of the moderate season option, which would consist of a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit, with a framework of October 1 to January 31 for the high harvest NAP areas; and a 70-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit, with a framework of October 1 to February 15 for the low harvest NAP areas for the 2018-19 season. The Council further recommended discontinuance of North Carolina's Southern James Bay Population (SJBP) zone. This area would become part of North Carolina's Atlantic Flyway Resident Population (AFRP) Zone.

    The Central Flyway Council recommended the implementation of modified Canada goose hunting zones in North Dakota and Wyoming. Wyoming would conduct an evaluation of the 3-way splits in two zones in accordance with established criteria.

    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended increasing the daily bag limit for Canada geese from 4 to 6 in the Northwest Permit Zone of Oregon. They further recommended reducing the size of Oregon's Tillamook County Management Area (i.e., reducing the size of the goose hunting closure).

    Service Response: We agree with the Atlantic Flyway Council's decision to explicitly consider uncertainty around breeding population estimates when developing its annual regulatory recommendation for NAP Canada geese, and we support the Council's recommendation for a moderate season in 2018-19. We also agree that the SJBP zone designation in North Carolina can be eliminated, and that incorporating that area into the State's AFRP zone is appropriate. The SJBP is no longer managed as a separate population in the Mississippi Flyway, where most of these birds are harvested; thus, the SJBP zone in North Carolina is not needed for harvest management purposes.

    We support the Central Flyway Council's recommendations. The change in North Dakota was previously addressed above in 4.A. Special Early Seasons. The changes will allow the States to better satisfy hunters' desires to hunt at certain times of the season without negatively impacting Canada goose populations. Wyoming will work together with the Service to conduct an evaluation of their change to conform to Service requirements.

    We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to increase the daily bag limit from 4 to 6 Canada geese in Oregon's Northwest Permit Zone. Seven subspecies of Canada geese occur in this area, but cackling Canada geese are the most abundant. The current 3-year average predicted fall population estimate (2015-17) for cackling geese is 321,475, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 250,000. The increase in bag limit is specifically intended to decrease abundance of cackling geese and address associated depredation complaints, and is consistent with the Council's harvest strategy for these birds. However, the bag limit increase could result in increased harvest of the 6 other subspecies of Canada geese in the area, but is not expected to be significant. Canada goose harvest in the area is expected to increase by less than 10 percent with the bag limit change, and State harvest data indicate cackling geese represent about 70 percent of the Canada goose harvest in this area. Other subspecies of Canada geese are over the Council's population objectives, have no open hunting season, occur mostly outside of the Northwest Zone, or have stable trends in abundance during the last 10 years. More specific to these other Canada goose subspecies, the current 3-year average breeding population estimate (2015-17) for Aleutian Canada geese is 167,451, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 60,000 geese. The current 3-year average breeding population estimate (2015-17) for the Pacific Population of western Canada geese is 313,200 and exceeds area-specific Flyway objectives. The hunting season on dusky Canada geese, a subspecies of management concern, is currently closed in this area. The potential for increased incidental take of dusky geese is expected to be small, and monitoring programs are in place to evaluate population status. Vancouver Canada geese are relatively nonmigratory, occur primarily in remote estuarine areas of southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia (i.e., Northwest Permit Zone is on the periphery of the subspecies' range), and additional harvest associated with the bag limit increase is expected to be insignificant. For Taverner's Canada geese and lesser Canada geese, there are no Flyway management plans, population objectives, or population- specific monitoring programs because these birds cannot be differentiated during surveys and breeding distributions are not disjunct. However, these subspecies are encountered during general waterfowl breeding population and habitat surveys across North America. Indices from these surveys indicate that abundance of Taverner's and lesser geese have been stable during the last 10 (2008-17) years.

    We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to reduce the size of the Tillamook County Management Area (i.e., goose hunting closure). Oregon's Tillamook County Management Area was established in 1982 to provide protection for Aleutian Canada geese, specifically those that primarily breed on the Semidi Islands, Alaska, and winter near Pacific City, Oregon. Aleutian Canada geese were listed as an endangered population in 1967 (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, which was later superseded by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); downlisted to threatened status in 1990 (55 FR 51106, December 12, 1990); and removed from protection under the Act in 2001 (66 FR 15643, March 20, 2001). The current 3-year average breeding population estimate (2015-17) for Aleutian geese is 167,451, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 60,000 geese. The Semidi Islands population segment is currently about 300 birds, and has consisted of about 100-300 birds since the 1990s. Monitoring data indicate that these birds almost exclusively use two pastures/hayfields within the goose hunting closure area. The closure area includes both non-goose habitat and pastures/hayfields the Semidi Islands geese do not use. The closure area has been reduced four times (2002, 2005, 2007, and 2011) since establishment to focus protection on areas Semidi Islands geese use and address depredation complaints resulting from increasing abundance of several populations of Canada and white-fronted geese in the area. This fifth reduction in the goose hunting closure area is expected to maintain the same level of protection for Semidi Islands geese and address the increasing number of goose depredation complaints in the area currently closed to goose hunting. Reduction of the goose hunting closure area could result in increased take of dusky Canada geese, a subspecies of management concern known to winter primarily in northwest Oregon and southwest Washington. However, the hunting season for this subspecies is closed in this area, the potential for increased incidental take is expected to be small, and monitoring programs are in place to evaluate population status.

    5. White-Fronted Geese

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended removal of the special goose season outside date restriction in Washington's Area 1.

    Service Response: We agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation. Removing the restriction would change the hunting season framework dates for white-fronted geese from the Saturday nearest September 24 and the last Sunday in February to the Saturday nearest September 24 and March 10, consistent with the general framework for the Pacific Flyway. The current 3-year average predicted fall population estimate (2015-17) for the Pacific Population of greater white-fronted geese is 633,399, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 300,000. The Area 1 framework date restriction was implemented when the local 3-year average snow goose count was below the 70,000 bird objective established in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's management plan for Wrangel Island snow geese. The current 3-year average snow goose count (2015-17) is 83,175, and exceeds the threshold of 70,000 birds. Removing the framework date restriction for white-fronted geese in Washington's Area 1 will simplify regulations by matching the general framework dates for white-fronted geese in the Pacific Flyway.

    6. Brant

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the 2018-19 season for Atlantic brant follow the Atlantic Flyway brant hunt plan pending the results of the 2018 Atlantic Flyway mid-winter waterfowl survey. The Council also recommended that if the results of the 2018 mid-winter survey are not available, then the results of the most recent mid-winter survey should be used.

    Service Response: As we discussed March 28, 2016, final rule (81 FR 17302), the current harvest strategy used to determine the Atlantic brant season frameworks does not fit well within the new regulatory process, similar to the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane issue discussed below under 9. Sandhill Cranes. In developing the annual proposed frameworks for Atlantic brant in the past, the Atlantic Flyway Council and the Service used the number of brant counted during the Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey (MWS) in the Atlantic Flyway, and took into consideration the brant population's expected productivity that summer. The MWS is conducted each January, and expected brant productivity is based on early-summer observations of breeding habitat conditions and nesting effort in important brant nesting areas. Thus, the data under consideration were available before the annual Flyway and SRC decision-making meetings took place in late July. Although the former regulatory alternatives for Atlantic brant were developed by factoring together long-term productivity rates (observed during November and December productivity surveys) with estimated observed harvest under different framework regulations, the primary decision-making criterion for selecting the annual frameworks was the MWS count.

    Under the new regulatory schedule, neither the expected 2018 brant production information (available summer 2018) nor the 2018 MWS count (conducted in January 2018) is yet available. However, the 2018 MWS will be completed and winter brant data will be available by the expected publication of the final frameworks (late February 2018). Therefore, in the September 24, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 57664), we adopted the Atlantic Flyway's changes to the then-current Atlantic brant hunt plan strategies. Current harvest packages (strategies) for Atlantic brant hunting seasons are now as follows:

    • If the mid-winter waterfowl survey (MWS) count is <100,000 Atlantic brant, the season would be closed.

    • If the MWS count is between 100,000 and 115,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit.

    • If the MWS count is between 115,000 and 130,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.

    • If the MWS count is between 130,000 and 150,000 brant, States could select a 50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.

    • If the MWS count is between 150,000 and 200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.

    • If the MWS count is >200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit.

    Under all the above open-season alternatives, seasons would be between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31. Further, States could split their seasons into 2 segments.

    When we acquire the 2018 MWS brant count in January 2018, we will select the appropriate Atlantic brant hunting season for 2018-19 from the above Atlantic brant hunt strategies and publish the result in the final frameworks rule.

    7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended, in Washington, removing the special goose season outside date restriction in Area 1.

    Service Response: We agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation. Removing the restriction would change the hunting season closing framework date for light geese from the last Sunday in February to March 10, consistent with the general framework for the Pacific Flyway. The Area 1 framework date restriction was implemented when the local 3-year average snow goose count was below the 70,000 bird objective established in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's management plan for Wrangel Island snow geese. The current 3-year average snow goose count (2015-17) is 83,175, and exceeds the threshold of 70,000 birds. Three populations of light geese occur in the Pacific Flyway, and all are above Flyway objectives based on the most recent breeding population indices. The population estimate for the Western Arctic Population (WAP) of lesser snow geese was 419,800 in 2013 (most recent estimate) on Banks Island, which is above the objective of 200,000 geese. Ross's geese were estimated at 624,100 in 2016 (most recent estimate) at Karrak Lake and are above the objective of 100,000 geese. The current 3-year average breeding population estimate (2015-17) for Wrangel Island snow geese is 297,333, which is above the objective of 120,000 geese. Current evidence suggests most light geese in Washington during fall and early winter are primarily Wrangel Island snow geese, but an influx of WAP lesser snow and Ross's geese may occur during late winter as birds begin to move north from California toward breeding areas. Removing the closing framework date restriction for light geese in Washington's Area 1 will simplify regulations by matching the general framework dates for light geese in the Pacific Flyway.

    9. Sandhill Cranes

    Council Recommendations: The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended changing the framework season length for Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) cranes from 30 consecutive days to 60 days that may be split into segments. The Pacific Flyway Council recommended a maximum of three season segments, whereas the Central Flyway Council recommendation did not specify a maximum number of season segments. The Pacific Flyway Council further recommended establishment of a new hunting unit for RMP cranes in the Malad River area of Oneida County, Idaho, and that allowable harvest of RMP cranes be determined based on the formula described in the Pacific and Central Flyway Management Plan for RMP cranes.

    Service Response: We agree with the Central and Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to increase the season length for RMP cranes from 30 to 60 days and to allow the season to be split into segments. However, we will restrict the number of season segments to three, consistent with the Pacific Flyway recommendation. The change in season length and splits is intended to provide increased flexibility to States in addressing crop depredation concerns and cranes staging for longer periods. This change is not expected to result in harvest of RMP cranes above allowable levels because States are allocated a maximum allowable harvest annually according to the harvest strategy specified in the Pacific and Central Flyway Council's RMP crane management plan. However, we note that increasing hunting opportunities likely will increase harvest and bring States closer to their harvest allocations. The Service, collaboratively with the States, will continue to monitor take levels to ensure that realized take remains within those allowed in the Flyway Councils' harvest strategy.

    We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to create a new hunting area for RMP cranes in Idaho to include a portion of Oneida County. The new hunting area is consistent with the hunting area requirements in the Pacific and Central Flyway Council's RMP crane management plan. Because this is a shared population between the Pacific and Central Flyways, the same recommendation should have come from the Central Flyway Council. Although we did not receive a formal recommendation from them, the Central Flyway Council has indicated to the Service that it supports the recommendation.

    Regarding the RMP crane harvest, as we discussed in the March 28, 2016, final rule (81 FR 17302), the current harvest strategy used to calculate the allowable harvest of RMP cranes does not fit well within the new regulatory process, similar to the Atlantic brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Results of the fall abundance and recruitment surveys of RMP cranes, which are used in the calculation of the annual allowable harvest, will continue to be released between December 1 and January 31 each year, which is after the date proposed frameworks will be formulated in the new regulatory process. If we were to propose regulations at this point in time, data 2 to 4 years old would be used to determine the annual allowable harvest and State harvest allocations for RMP cranes. We agree that relying on data that is 2 to 4 years old is not ideal due to the variability in fall abundance and recruitment for this population, and the significance of these data in the annual harvest allocations. Thus, we agree that the formula to determine the annual allowable harvest for RMP cranes published in the March 28, 2016, final rule should be used under the new regulatory schedule. We will produce a final estimate for the allowable harvest of RMP cranes and publish it in the final frameworks rule, allowing us to use data that is 1 to 3 years old, as is currently practiced.

    14. Woodcock

    In 2011, we implemented a harvest strategy for woodcock (76 FR 19876, April 8, 2011). The harvest strategy provides a transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock season length and bag limits while we work to improve monitoring and assessment protocols for this species. Utilizing the criteria developed for the strategy, the 3-year average for the Singing Ground Survey indices and associated confidence intervals fall within the “moderate package” for both the Eastern and Central Management Regions. As such, a “moderate season” for both management regions for the 2018-19 season is appropriate.

    Specifics of the harvest strategy can be found at https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/webless-migratory-game-birds/american-woodcock.php.

    16. Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended use of the “standard” season framework comprising a 90-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit for States within the Eastern Management Unit (EMU). The daily bag limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination. They also recommended that the closing framework date for the EMU be changed from January 15 to January 31.

    The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended the use of the “standard” season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 90-day season for the 2018-19 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit.

    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “standard” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves.

    Service Response: Based on the harvest strategies and current population status, we agree with the recommended selection of the “standard” season frameworks for doves in the Eastern, Central, and Western Management Units for the 2018-19 season.

    22. Other

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that Atlantic Flyway States be granted compensatory days for webless migratory game bird hunting beginning with the 2018-19 hunting season in States where Sunday hunting for migratory game birds is prohibited by a State law adopted prior to 1997 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania).

    Service Response: We agree with the Atlantic Flyway Council's recommendation to allow compensatory days for all migratory game bird species in States where Sunday hunting is prohibited by State law. Compensatory days will provide additional hunting opportunity for dove, woodcock, rail, snipe, and gallinule hunters in those States, thereby assisting State agency efforts to retain hunters. We expect that the biological impacts of the additional hunting opportunity afforded by compensatory days will be minimal on snipe, rails, and gallinules, which are lightly hunted in the Atlantic Flyway. More than 88 percent of the mourning dove harvest in the Atlantic Flyway occurs during the first month of the season, and only 4 of the affected States have dove seasons; thus, adding compensatory days later in the dove season in those States will not increase the harvest significantly. Based on recent (2012-2016) estimates of woodcock harvested per day, the additional 7 woodcock hunting days (5 in New Jersey) in the affected States is expected to result in approximately 5,500 additional woodcock harvested, about 9 percent of the recent annual woodcock harvest in the Atlantic Flyway. If this additional harvest results in measurable adverse population impacts, the woodcock hunting season and harvest in the Atlantic Flyway will be adjusted in accordance with the woodcock harvest strategy, which is based on the population status of the species.

    Public Comments

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES.

    We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia.

    We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preambles of any final rules.

    Required Determinations

    Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the August 3 and October 3 proposed rules; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our August 3, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 36308):

    • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration;

    • Endangered Species Act Consideration;

    • Regulatory Flexibility Act;

    • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;

    • Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;

    • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;

    • Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, 13563, and 13771.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

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

    The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2018-19 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

    Dated: January 16, 2018. 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. Proposed Regulations Frameworks for 2018-19 Hunting Seasons on Certain Migratory Game Birds

    Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following proposed frameworks for season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession limits, and outside dates within which States may select seasons for hunting migratory game birds between the dates of September 1, 2018, and March 10, 2019. These frameworks are summarized below.

    General

    Dates: All outside dates noted below are inclusive.

    Shooting and Hawking (taking by falconry) Hours: Unless otherwise specified, from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset daily.

    Possession Limits: Unless otherwise specified, possession limits are three times the daily bag limit.

    Permits: For some species of migratory birds, the Service authorizes the use of permits to regulate harvest or monitor their take by sport hunters, or both. In many cases (e.g., tundra swans, some sandhill crane populations), the Service determines the amount of harvest that may be taken during hunting seasons during its formal regulations-setting process, and the States then issue permits to hunters at levels predicted to result in the amount of take authorized by the Service. Thus, although issued by States, the permits would not be valid unless the Service approved such take in its regulations.

    These Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take migratory birds at levels specified in the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferrable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.

    Flyways and Management Units Waterfowl Flyways<