Federal Register Vol. 83, No.56,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 56 (March 22, 2018)

Page Range12471-12655
FR Document

83_FR_56
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 12575 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary SchoolsPDF
83 FR 12471 - National Agriculture Day, 2018PDF
83 FR 12607 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 12577 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 12571 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 12576 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active IngredientsPDF
83 FR 12575 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
83 FR 12516 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
83 FR 12561 - Notice of Correction to Federal Register Notice for Pilot of USPS Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators During 2018 End-to-End Census TestPDF
83 FR 12616 - In the Matter of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1PDF
83 FR 12561 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Service Annual SurveyPDF
83 FR 12502 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Catch LimitsPDF
83 FR 12596 - Proposed Exemption From Certain Prohibited Transaction RestrictionsPDF
83 FR 12643 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application for an Exemption From Traditional Trucking CorporationPDF
83 FR 12645 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 12640 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
83 FR 12641 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 12638 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee; MeetingPDF
83 FR 12474 - Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment; Technical AmendmentPDF
83 FR 12636 - Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC-Amendment to Trackage Rights Exemption-The Indiana Rail Road CompanyPDF
83 FR 12624 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 12638 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Imagery Collection, LLCPDF
83 FR 12592 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 12654 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing or Special Adaptation GrantPDF
83 FR 12653 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application by Insured Terminally Ill Person for Accelerated BenefitPDF
83 FR 12654 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Change of Address StatementPDF
83 FR 12585 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice To Close MeetingPDF
83 FR 12585 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 12620 - Submission for Review: Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity, RI 20-120PDF
83 FR 12620 - Excepted Service; October 2017PDF
83 FR 12618 - Excepted Service; December 2017PDF
83 FR 12619 - Federal Salary Council; Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 12483 - Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to the Importation of Live Animals: Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 12590 - Agency Information Collection Activities; DOI Programmatic Clearance for Customer Satisfaction SurveysPDF
83 FR 12569 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12578 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 12577 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 12590 - Agency Information Collection Activities; DOI Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
83 FR 12571 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12606 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment StandardPDF
83 FR 12563 - Foreign-Trade Zone 283-Western Tennessee Area; Application for Reorganization, (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
83 FR 12594 - Rubber Bands From China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 12583 - Solicitation for Applications From Individuals Interested in Being Appointed to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 12608 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 12570 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12563 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
83 FR 12586 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 12588 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 12614 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 12611 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 12613 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 12615 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 12614 - Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 12612 - Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 12580 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal HealthPDF
83 FR 12581 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12595 - Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Enforcement Proceeding Based on a Settlement Agreement and an Unopposed Motion To Rescind the Remedial Orders; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
83 FR 12592 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation With Respect to the Antitrust Claim; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding With Respect to Defaulting RespondentsPDF
83 FR 12653 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce BenefitsPDF
83 FR 12608 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 12551 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Fishing Year 2018 Recreational Management MeasuresPDF
83 FR 12625 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12635 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12640 - One Hundred and First RTCA 159 PlenaryPDF
83 FR 12568 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Air Force Reserve Command F-35A Operational BeddownPDF
83 FR 12636 - Defense Trade Advisory Group; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
83 FR 12582 - 2018 Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Science SymposiumPDF
83 FR 12564 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coastal Zone Management Program AdministrationPDF
83 FR 12567 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12566 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12580 - Oregon Lithoprint, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
83 FR 12578 - CoreLogic Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
83 FR 12582 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget ApprovalsPDF
83 FR 12633 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Listing Rules Under Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(i) Related to Equity Index-Linked SecuritiesPDF
83 FR 12627 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rule 7600(i) To Allow Split-Price Transactions on the BOX Trading FloorPDF
83 FR 12630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe Limited CDS Procedures, CDS Risk Policy, and CDS Risk Model DescriptionPDF
83 FR 12625 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Correct an Error in IM-7600-2PDF
83 FR 12633 - Order Granting Motion for Extension of TimePDF
83 FR 12633 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Withdrawal of Amendment No. 4 to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit TrailPDF
83 FR 12475 - Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List; Correction of License RequirementsPDF
83 FR 12506 - Small Business Size Standards; Alternative Size Standard for 7(a), 504, and Disaster Loan ProgramsPDF
83 FR 12646 - Automation in the Railroad IndustryPDF
83 FR 12529 - Request for Information on Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle EnvironmentPDF
83 FR 12567 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Enforcement ProcessesPDF
83 FR 12567 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated ProcessesPDF
83 FR 12485 - Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various CategoriesPDF
83 FR 12505 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Rules of Practice for Adjudication ProceedingsPDF
83 FR 12610 - 30-Day Notice for the “Evaluation of the Poetry Out Loud Program” Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12624 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 12624 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 12504 - Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelPDF
83 FR 12527 - Clarification of Post-Approval Testing Standards for Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators; Technical AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 12584 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
83 FR 12560 - Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 12650 - BMW of North America, LLC-Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 108 for Adaptive Driving Beam; BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America-Request for Certain Information To Support Petitions for Adaptive Driving BeamsPDF
83 FR 12565 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 12560 - Rogue-Umpqua Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 12585 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRsPDF
83 FR 12522 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
83 FR 12514 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, OklahomaPDF
83 FR 12493 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revised StatutesPDF
83 FR 12596 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Global Climate and Energy ProjectPDF
83 FR 12649 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
83 FR 12637 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
83 FR 12637 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
83 FR 12531 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 57PDF
83 FR 12501 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 12511 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Wrightstown, PAPDF
83 FR 12473 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clanton, ALPDF
83 FR 12513 - Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Exportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Sudan and Iran; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 12486 - Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)PDF
83 FR 12496 - Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Elements of the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)PDF
83 FR 12639 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Capacity Enhancements and Other Improvements at Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NCPDF
83 FR 12488 - Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter (PM2.5PDF
83 FR 12491 - Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)PDF
83 FR 12508 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF

Issue

83 56 Thursday, March 22, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Air Force Reserve Command F-35A Operational Beddown, 12568-12569 2018-05807 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Global Climate and Energy Project, 12596 2018-05764 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12569 2018-05812 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection PROPOSED RULES Requests for Information: Bureau Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, 12505-12506 2018-05780 NOTICES Requests for Information: Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated Processes, 12567 2018-05783 Bureau Enforcement Processes, 12567-12568 2018-05784 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pilot of USPS Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators during 2018 End-to-End Census Test; Correction, 12561 2018-05874 Service Annual Survey, 12561-12563 2018-05871 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Guidance: National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal Health, 12580-12581 2018-05818 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12581 2018-05817 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12569-12571 2018-05831 2018-05837 2018-05841
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Impact Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary Schools, 12575 C1--2018--05258 Privacy Act; System of Records, 12571-12575 2018-05886 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Exemption from Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 12596-12606 2018-05867 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12491-12493 2018-05537 Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12486-12488 2018-05631 Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12488-12491 2018-05540 Missouri; Elements of the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 12496-12501 2018-05630 New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revised Statutes, 12493-12496 2018-05765 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site, 12501-12502 2018-05752 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oklahoma, 12514-12516 2018-05766 Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12516-12522 2018-05876 Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standard, 12522-12527 2018-05767 NOTICES Pesticide Product Registrations: New Active Ingredients, 12576-12577 2018-05882 New Uses, 12575-12576 2018-05880 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class E Airspace; Amendments: Clanton, AL, 12473-12474 2018-05707 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment; Technical Amendment, 12474-12475 2018-05859 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 12508-12511 2018-05099 Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Amendments: Wrightstown, PA, 12511-12513 2018-05708 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Capacity Enhancements and Other Improvements at Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC, 12639-12640 2018-05583 Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee—Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee, 12638 2018-05860 One Hundred and First RTCA 159 Plenary, 12640 2018-05808 Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: Imagery Collection, LLC, 12638 2018-05855 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12577 2018-05934 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions, 12585-12586 2018-05769 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Applications: Traditional Trucking Corp., 12643-12645 2018-05864 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 12641-12643, 12645-12646 2018-05861 2018-05863 Hearing, 12640-12641 2018-05862 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Automation in the Railroad Industry, 12646-12649 2018-05786 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 12577 2018-05839 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 12578 2018-05840 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: CoreLogic Inc., 12578-12580 2018-05799 Oregon Lithoprint, Inc.; Correction, 12580 2018-05800 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitation on Claims against Proposed Public Transportation Projects, 12649-12650 2018-05762 2018-05763 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Permit Applications, 12586-12590 2018-05828 2018-05829 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Guidance: Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to the Importation of Live Animals, 12483-12485 2018-05843 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12582-12583 2018-05797 Meetings: 2018 Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Science Symposium, 12582 2018-05805 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office PROPOSED RULES Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Exportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Sudan and Iran, 12513-12514 2018-05638 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 283; Western Tennessee Area, 12563 2018-05835 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee, 12560-12561 2018-05773 Rogue-Umpqua Resource Advisory Committee, 12560 2018-05770 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

PROPOSED RULES Post-Approval Testing Standards for Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators, 12527-12529 2018-05775 NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 12584-12585 2018-05774 Requests for Nominations: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, 12583-12584 2018-05833
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List and Removal of Certain Persons from the Entity List; Correction of License Requirements, 12475-12483 2018-05789 NOTICES Export Privileges; Denials: Volodymyr Nedoviz, 12563-12564 2018-05830 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 12590 2018-05838 Programmatic Clearance for Customer Satisfaction Surveys, 12590-12592 2018-05842
International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, 12592-12594 2018-05815 Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, 12595-12596 2018-05816 Rubber Bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, 12594 2018-05834 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard, 12606-12607 2018-05836
Mississippi Mississippi River Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 12607-12608 2018-05943 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12608 2018-05832 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 12608-12610 2018-05813 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of Poetry Out Loud Program, 12610 2018-05779 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petition for Temporary Exemptions; Adaptive Driving Beam: BMW of North America, LLC; BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America, 12650-12653 2018-05772 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 12585 2018-05849 National Institute of Nursing Research, 12585 2018-05850 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Catch Limits, 12502-12503 2018-05869 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Fishing Year 2018 Recreational Management Measures, 12551-12559 2018-05811 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 57, 12531-12551 2018-05755 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12566-12567 2018-05801 2018-05802 2018-05803 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Coastal Zone Management Program Administration, 12564-12565 2018-05804 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 12565-12566 2018-05771 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN; Correction, 12592 2018-05854 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Engineering, 12614 2018-05820 Advisory Committee for Polar Programs, 12612-12613 2018-05819 Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, 12611-12616 2018-05821 2018-05822 2018-05823 2018-05824 2018-05825 2018-05826 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 12504-12505 2018-05776 NOTICES License Transfers: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, 12616-12617 2018-05873 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity, 12620 2018-05847 Excepted Service: December 2017, 12618-12619 2018-05845 October 2017, 12620-12624 2018-05846 Meetings: Federal Salary Council, 12619-12620 2018-05844 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle Environment, 12529-12531 2018-05785 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 12624 2018-05856 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 12624-12625 2018-05778 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 12624 2018-05777 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Agriculture Day (Proc. 9708), 12471-12472 2018-05980 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation RULES Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories, 12485-12486 2018-05781 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12625, 12635-12636 2018-05809 2018-05810 Joint Industry Plans: Amendment No. 4 to National Market System Plan Governing Consolidated Audit Trail; Withdrawal, 12633 2018-05790 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 12625-12630 2018-05792 2018-05794 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 12633-12635 2018-05791 2018-05795 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 12630-12633 2018-05793 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Small Business Size Standards: Alternative Size Standard for 7(a), 504, and Disaster Loan Programs, 12506-12508 2018-05787 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Defense Trade Advisory Group, 12636 2018-05806 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Trackage Rights; Exemptions: Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC; Indiana Rail Road Co., 12636-12637 2018-05857 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved: Consumptive Uses of Water, 12637 2018-05757 Projects Rescinded: Consumptive Uses of Water, 12637 2018-05758 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

NOTICES Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce Benefits, 12653 2018-05814
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application by Insured Terminally Ill Person for Accelerated Benefit, 12653-12654 2018-05852 Application in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing or Special Adaptation Grant, 12654-12655 2018-05853 Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Change of Address Statement, 12654 2018-05851 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 56 Thursday, March 22, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0802; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-18] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clanton, AL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace at Chilton County Airport (formerly Gragg-Wade Field Airport), Clanton, AL, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Gragg-Wade non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

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:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Av, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chilton County Airport, Clanton, AL, to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 55964, November 27, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0802 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chilton County Airport, Clanton, AL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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 part 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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Chilton County Airport, Clanton, AL, due to the decommissioning of the Gragg-Wade NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the airport name is updated to Chilton County Airport.

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. 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 5-6.5a. 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, 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. ASO AL E5 Clanton, AL [Amended] Chilton County Airport, AL (Lat. 32°51′02″ N., long. 86°36′41″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Chilton County Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 14, 2018. Ryan W. Almsay, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-05707 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 121 [Docket No.: FAA-2016-9526; Amdt. No. 121-377B] RIN 2120-AK95 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The FAA publishes this action to correct a minor, editorial error in a December 16, 2016 final rule on related aircraft proficiency checks. The FAA published a final rule to allow air carriers to seek a deviation from the flight simulation training device (FSTD) requirements for related aircraft proficiency checks. The rule eliminated an inconsistency that permitted carriers that have obtained FAA approval to modify the FSTD requirements for related aircraft differences training, but not for corresponding proficiency checks. As a result, the rule allowed air carriers to seek a deviation from the FSTD requirements for such proficiency checks based on a related aircraft designation and determination of an equivalent level of safety. This technical amendment removes a redundancy in the regulatory text that now exists as a result of the final rule.

DATES:

Effective March 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheri Pippin, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8166; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires publication of a substantive rule must be made not less than 30 days before the effective date except as provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because today's action only eliminates an unnecessary redundancy in 14 CFR 121.441(f), which the FAA amended on December 16, 2016, 81 FR 90979.

Good cause exists under section 553(d)(3) of the APA for this technical correction to become effective on the date of this action. Section 553(d)(3) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period the APA prescribes is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their actions and prepare for the effectiveness of the final rule.

Today's amendment, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. This document only removes an unnecessary redundancy in 14 CFR 121.441(f)(2)(iii) because the text of paragraph (f)(2)(iii) is largely duplicative of the text of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B). For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) exists for this amendment to become effective on March 22, 2018.

II. Background

On December 16, 2016, the FAA published the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment. 81 FR 90979. Corrected at 81 FR 95860, December 29, 2016. This final rule allows air carriers to seek a deviation from the FSTD requirements for related aircraft proficiency checks. As the FAA noted in the final rule, the FAA's Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule issued in 2013 included opportunities for air carriers to modify training program requirements for flightcrew members when the carrier operates multiple aircraft types with similar design and flight handling characteristics.

The final rule provided for the possibility of a deviation to allow credit for flightcrew member qualification requirements, including proficiency checks, when the carrier operates multiple aircraft types with similar design and flight handling characteristics. Paragraph (f) permits the Administrator to approve such a deviation based on a designation of related aircraft after the Administrator determines the certificate holder can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety. Specifically, paragraph (f) allows for deviation from the frequency of proficiency checks and from certain procedures and maneuvers required in appendix F to part 121 (Proficiency Check Requirements). Paragraph (f) did not, however, provide for the possibility of a deviation from the FSTD requirements specified in appendix F to part 121. Therefore, prior to the December 16, 2016 final rule, § 121.441(f) did not allow a deviation even in cases in which the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) determines that the use of a lower level FSTD for a specific maneuver or procedure may be acceptable on a related aircraft proficiency check. This oversight resulted in inconsistency, as such a determination by the FSB would be based on similarities in design and flight characteristics between the base aircraft and the related aircraft. As a result, the FAA recognized a need to permit deviation from the FSTD requirements in appendix F to part 121. The December 16, 2016 final rule amended § 121.441 by amending paragraph (f), accordingly.

This technical amendment removes paragraph (f)(2)(iii) from § 121.441 because the FAA's recent changes to § 121.441 render the paragraph unnecessary. Paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of § 121.441 requires the inclusion of maneuvers and procedures, as well as the level of FSTD to be used for each maneuver and procedure, in applications for deviation from the proficiency check requirements of § 121.441. Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) also states carriers must include maneuvers and procedures in related aircraft proficiency checks. As a result, although paragraph (f)(2)(iii) does not require a listing of the level of FSTD the carrier plans to use for each maneuver and procedure, the two paragraphs are unnecessarily redundant. Overall, the amended regulatory text will continue to ensure carriers that request a deviation based on a designation of related aircraft must include, for purposes of qualification proficiency checks, the necessary maneuvers and procedures as well as the level of FSTD to be used for each maneuver and procedure.

III. Technical Amendment

Consistent with the foregoing, the FAA removes paragraph (f)(2)(iii) to eliminate the redundancy in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(ii)(B).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

§ 121.441 [Amended]
2. Amend § 121.441 by removing paragraph (f)(2)(iii).

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington, DC.

Lirio Liu, Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018-05859 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 180227219-8219-01] RIN 0694-AH51 Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List; Correction of License Requirements AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding twenty-three persons to the Entity List. These twenty-three persons have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of Pakistan, Singapore and South Sudan. This rule also removes one person under the destination of Ecuador and one person under the destination of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) from the Entity List. Both removals are the result of requests for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entry and a review of information provided in the removal requests. Lastly, this rule corrects the license requirement for twelve entities that were added under the destination of Russia as part of a recent BIS rule.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Entity List (15 CFR, Subchapter C, part 744, Supplement No. 4) identifies entities reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR, Subchapter C, parts 730-774) imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register notice adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

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

ERC Entity List Decisions Additions to the Entity List

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add twenty-three persons to the Entity List. These twenty-three persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The twenty-three entries added to the Entity List consist of seven entities located in Pakistan, one entity in Singapore and fifteen entities in South Sudan.

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

The ERC determined that the fifteen entities being added to the Entity List under the destination of South Sudan—Ascom Sudd Operating Company; Dar Petroleum Operating Company; DietsmannNile; Greater Pioneer Operating Co. Ltd; Juba Petrotech Technical Services Ltd; Nile Delta Petroleum Company; Nile Drilling and Services Company; Nile Petroleum Corporation; Nyakek and Sons; Oranto Petroleum; Safinat Group; SIPET Engineering and Consultancy Services; South Sudan Ministry of Mining; South Sudan Ministry of Petroleum; and Sudd Petroleum Operating Co.—are government, parastatal and private entities in South Sudan that are involved in activities that are contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.

In addition, the ERC determined that Mushko Logistics Pte. Ltd. (located under the destination of Singapore) and Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd (located under the destination of Pakistan) be added to the Entity List on the grounds that these two entities procured items for several Pakistani entities on the Entity List. The ERC has also determined that Solutions Engineering (located under the destination of Pakistan) be added to the Entity List based on their involvement in activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Specifically, the ERC determined that this entity has been involved in the procurement of U.S.-origin items on behalf of nuclear-related entities in Pakistan that are already listed on the Entity List.

For the remaining five entities being added to the Entity List under the destination of Pakistan, the ERC determined that three of the entities, Akhtar & Munir, Proficient Engineers and Pervaiz Commercial Trading Co. (PCTC), be added based on their involvement in the proliferation of unsafeguarded nuclear activities that are contrary to the national security and/or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC also determined that Marine Systems Pvt. Ltd. be added to the Entity List for assisting Pakistani entities on the Entity List in circumventing the restrictions of § 744.11 of the EAR by obtaining items subject to the EAR on behalf of those listed entities without the required licenses. Lastly, the ERC determined that Engineering and Commercial Services (ECS) be added to the Entity based on its involvement in supplying a Pakistani nuclear-related entity on the Entity List.

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

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

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

Pakistan

(1) Akhtar & Munir, Hussain Plaza 60-B No. 3, Adamjee Road, Punjab 46000, Pakistan;

(2) Engineering and Commercial Services (ECS), 204, 2nd Floor, Capital Business Center, F-10 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan;

(3) Marine Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Kashmir Plaza, Blue Area, G-6/F-6 Islamabad, Pakistan;

(4) Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Safa House Address, Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi Pakistan; and Victoria Chambers, Abdullah Haroon Road, Saddar Town, Karachi Pakistan; and Office No. 3&8, First Floor, Center Point Plaza, Main Boulevad, Gullberg-III, Lahore, Pakistan; and 26-D Kashmir Plaza East, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 68-W, Sama Plaza, Blue Area Sector G-7, Islamabad, Pakistan;

(5) Pervaiz Commercial Trading Co. (PCTC), PCTC House, 36-B Model Town, Lahore, Pakistan;

(6) Proficient Engineers, Tariq Block, 437 New Garen Town, Lahore, Pakistan; and

(7) Solutions Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—Solutronix Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and —Solutronix Pvt. Ltd. 95A Solutions Tower, DHA Phase 8 Commercial Broadway, Lahore, Pakistan; and 54-B PAF Colony, Zarar Shaheed, Lahore, Pakistan; and Ground Floor, Almas Tower, Begum Salma Tassadaq Road, Near E Plomer, Lahore, Pakistan; and Suite 1&4, Hafeez Chamber 85 The Mall Lahore, Pakistan; and Gohawa Dak Dhana Bhatta Kohaar, Lahore, Pakistan; and Sehajpal Village, near New Airport Road, Lahore, Pakistan; and, Office #201, 2nd Floor, Capital Business Center, F-10 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 156 The Mall, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Singapore

(1) Mushko Logistics Pte. Ltd., Unit 04-01, Lip Hing Industrial Building, 3 Pemimpin Drive, Singapore; and 37 Pemimpin Drive, #06-12 MAPEX, Singapore; and Unit 04-01/03, Pandan Logistics Hub, 49 Pandan Road, Singapore; and 54 Lakeside Drive, #01-22 Caspian, Singapore.

South Sudan

(1) Ascom Sudd Operating Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—ASOC. South Sudan;

(2) Dar Petroleum Operating Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—DPOC. Zhongnan Hotel, on UNMISS Road, South Sudan;

(3) DietsmannNile, Tomping District opposite Arkel Restaurant, two blocks north of Airport Road, Juba, South Sudan;

(4) Greater Pioneer Operating Co. Ltd, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—GPOC. South Sudan;

(5) Juba Petrotech Technical Services Ltd, South Sudan;

(6) Nile Delta Petroleum Company, Hai Malakai neighborhood, Juba, South Sudan;

(7) Nile Drilling and Services Company, Hai Amarat, Airport Road, West Yat Building, Third Floor, Juba, South Sudan;

(8) Nile Petroleum Corporation, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—Nilepet. Tomping District opposite Arkel Restaurant, two blocks north of Airport Road, Juba, South Sudan;

(9) Nyakek and Sons, Jubatown District near the Ivory Bank, Juba, South Sudan;

(10) Oranto Petroleum, Referendum Road, Juba, South Sudan;

(11) Safinat Group, South Sudan;

(12) SIPET Engineering and Consultancy Services, a.k.a., the following one alias:

—SPECS. Tomping District opposite Arkel Restaurant, two blocks north of Airport Road, Juba, South Sudan;

(13) South Sudan Ministry of Mining, Nimra Talata, P.O. Box 376, Juba, South Sudan;

(14) South Sudan Ministry of Petroleum, Ministries Road, Opposite the Presidential Palace, P.O. Box 376, Juba, South Sudan; and

(15) Sudd Petroleum Operating Co., a.k.a., the following one alias:

—SPOC. Tharjath, Unity State, South Sudan. Removal From the Entity List

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove the following two entries from the Entity List on the basis of removal requests received by BIS, as follows: Corporacion Nacional de Telecommunicaciones (CNT), located in Ecuador, and Talaat Mehmood, located in the U.A.E. The entry for CNT was added to the Entity List on June 4, 2015 (see 80 FR 31836). The entry for Talaat Mehmood was added to the Entity List on May 26, 2017 (see 82 FR 24245). The ERC decided to remove these two entries based on information received by BIS pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR and review conducted by the ERC.

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

Ecuador

(1) Corporacion Nacional de Telecommunicaciones (CNT), Avenida Gaspar de Villaroel, Quito Ecuador; and Avda. Veintimilla, Suite 1149 y Amazonas, Edificio Estudio Z, Quito, Ecuador.

United Arab Emirates

(1) Talaat Mehmood, Q-4 136 Warehouse, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and Q1-08-051/B, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and P.O. Box 121826, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE.

Correction of License Requirements

On February 16, 2018, BIS published a final rule, Russian Sanctions: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List (83 FR 6949) (the February 16 rule), which added twenty-one entities to the Entity List under the destinations of Georgia, Poland, and Russia. Of the twenty-one entities added in the February 16 rule, twelve were added based on activities described in Executive Order 13662 (79 FR 16169), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued on March 20, 2014. The preamble of the February 16 rule described the imposition of a license requirement for twelve Russian entities: Kaliningradnefteprodukt OOO; Kinef OOO; Kirishiavtoservis OOO; Lengiproneftekhim OOO; Media-Invest OOO; Novgorodnefteprodukt OOO; Pskovnefteprodukt OOO; SNGB AO; SO Tvernefteprodukt OOO; Sovkhoz Chervishevski PAO; Strakhovove Obshchestvo Surgutneftegaz OOO; and Surgutmebel OOO, for activities described in § 746.5 of the EAR. Specifically, the preamble stated that a license is required for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR, when the exporter, reexporter or transferor knows that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploratinon for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or is unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. However, the February 16 rule's amendments to the EAR adding these twelve entities incorrectly specified in the entry for each entity a license requirement that read as follows: “For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR).” This final rule corrects the license requirement column in the entry for each of the twelve entities to clarify that the Entity List's license requirements apply to all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR, as stated in the February 16 rule's preamble. The full name of each entity, along with any aliases, and accompanying addresses, is as follows:

(1) Kaliningradnefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—Kaliningradnefteprodukt LLC; —Limited Liability Company Kaliningradnefteproduct; and —LLC Kaliningradnefteproduct. 22-b Komsomolskaya Ulitsa, Central District, Kaliningrad, Russia;

(2) Kinef OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—Kinef, LLC; —Limited Liability Company Production Association Kirishinefteorgsintez; and —LLC Kinef. d. 1 Shosse Entuziastov, Kirishi, Leningradskaya Oblast 187110, Russia;

(3) Kirishiavtoservis OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—Limited Liability Company Kirishiavtoservis; and —LLC Kirishiavtoservis. lit A, 12 Smolenskaya Ulitsa, St. Petersburg 196084;

(4) Lengiproneftekhim OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—Institut Po Proektirovaniyu Predpriyaty Neftepererabatyvayuschey I Neftekhimicheskoy Promyshlennosti, Limited Liability Company; —Limited Liability Company Oil Refining and Petrochemical Facilities Design Institute; and —LLC Lengiproneftekhim. d. 94, Obvodnogo Kanala, nab, St. Petersburg 196084, Russia;

(5) Media-Invest OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—Limited Liability Company Media-Invest; and —LLC Media-Invest. 17 Bld 1 Zubovsky Blvd., Moscow 119847, Russia;

(6) Novgorodnefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—Limited Liability Company Novgorodnefteproduct; —LLC Novgorodnefteproduct; and —Novgorodnefteprodukt LLC. d. 20 Germana Ulitsa, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya Oblast 173002, Russia;

(7) Pskovnefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—Limited Liability Company Marketing Association Pskovnefteproduct; and —LLC Pskovnefteproduct. 4 Oktyabrsky Prospekt, Pskov 180000, Russia;

(8) SNGB AO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—Closed Joint Stock Company Surgutneftegasbank (ZAO SNGB); —Joint Stock Company Surgutneftegasbank; and —JSC BANK SNGB. 19 Kukuyvitskogo Street, Surgut 628400, Russia;

(9) SO Tvernefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

—Limited Liability Company Marketing Association Tvernefteproduct; and —LLC MA Tvernefteproduct. 6 Novotorzhskaya Ulitsa, Tver, Russia;

(10) Sovkhoz Chervishevski PAO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—OJSC Sovkhoz Chervishevsky; —Open Joint Stock Company Sovkhoz Chervishevsky; and —Sovkhoz Chervishevsky, JSC. d. 81 Sovetskaya Ulitsa, S. Chervichevsky, Tyumensky Rayon, Tyumensky Oblast 625519, Russia;

(11) Strakhovove Obshchestvo Surgutneftegaz OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

—Insurance Company Surgutneftegas, LLC; —Limited Liability Company Insurance Company Surgutneftegas; and —LLC Insurance Company Surgutneftegas. 9/1 Lermontova Ulitsa, Surgut 628418, Russia;

(12) Surgutmebel OOO, a.k.a., the following four aliases:

—Limited Liability Company Syrgutmebel; —LLC Surgutmebel; —LLC Syrgutmebel; and —Surgutmebel, LLC. Vostochnaya Industrial 1 Territory 2, Poselok Barsovo, Surgutsky District, Yugra, Khanty-Mansiysky Autonomos Okrug, Russia. Savings Clause

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on March 22, 2018, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

Export Administration Act of 1979

Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017), has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

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

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

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

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

4. For the twenty-three persons added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation and a 30-day delay in effective date are inapplicable, because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implementation of this rule is necessary to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items subject to the EAR from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the persons being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items subject to the EAR without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these persons notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List, which could create an incentive for them to accelerate their receipt of items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, including taking steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and engaging in other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule is published.

5. For the two entities removed from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. In determining whether to grant a request for removal from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed entities requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These two removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales to the entities removed by this rule because the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removal pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicants whose removal has been approved by the ERC to receive U.S. exports immediately, subject to any other potential license requirements that may apply under provisions of the EAR other than the Entity List).

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

Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule is a substantive rule which relieves a restriction. This rule's removal of two entities from the Entity List removes requirements (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation on use of license exceptions) on those two entities. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other person for these removals from the Entity List. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule.

6. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive the provisions of the APA regarding notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a 30-day delay in effective date for corrections made to twelve entries on the Entity List as part of this rule. This rule merely corrects an error resulting from a February 16, 2018 rule regarding the licensing requirement under the EAR that is applicable to items destined for or otherwise involving twelve entities that were added to the Entity List by the rule. The February 16, 2018 rule was a final rule with immediate effectiveness. It would be contrary to the public interest to delay publication of a correction and thereby exacerbate confusion on the part of the public as to the correct licensing requirement for shipments to or involving these twelve entities.

7. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

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

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

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017); Notice of September 18, 2017, 82 FR 43825 (September 19, 2017); Notice of November 6, 2017, 82 FR 51971 (November 8, 2017); Notice of January 17, 2018, 83 FR 2731 (January 18, 2018).

2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended: a. By removing the heading “Ecuador” and one Ecuadorian entity, “Corporacion Nacional de Telecommunicaciones (CNT), Avenida Gaspar de Villaroel, Quito Ecuador; and Avda. Veintimilla, Suite 1149 y Amazonas, Edificio Estudio Z, Quito, Ecuador.”; b. By adding, under Pakistan, in alphabetical order, seven Pakistani entities; c. By revising, under Russia, twelve Russian entities; d. By adding, under Singapore, in alphabetical order, one Singaporean entity; e. By adding, in alphabetical order, a heading for South Sudan and fifteen South Sudanese entities; f. By removing, under United Arab Emirates, one Emirati entity, “Talaat Mehmood, Q-4 136 Warehouse, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and Q1-08-051/B, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE; and P.O. Box 121826, Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone, Sharjah, UAE.”

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License
  • requirement
  • License review policy Federal Register
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * PAKISTAN  *         *         *         *         *         * Akhtar & Munir, Hussain Plaza 60-B No. 3, Adamjee Road, Punjab 46000, Pakistan; For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  •  *         *         *         *         *         * Engineering and Commercial Services (ECS), 204, 2nd Floor, Capital Business Center, F-10 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  •  *         *         *         *         *         * Marine Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Kashmir Plaza, Blue Area, G-6/F-6 Islamabad, Pakistan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  •  *         *         *         *         *         * Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Safa House Address, Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi Pakistan; and Victoria Chambers, Abdullah Haroon Road, Saddar Town, Karachi Pakistan; and Office No. 3&8, First Floor, Center Point Plaza, Main Boulevad, Gullberg-III, Lahore, Pakistan; 26-D Kashmir Plaza East, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 68-W, Sama Plaza, Blue Area Sector G-7, Islamabad, Pakistan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  •  *         *         *         *         *         * Pervaiz Commercial Trading Co. (PCTC), PCTC House, 36-B Model Town, Lahore, Pakistan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  •  *         *         *         *         *         * Proficient Engineers, Tariq Block, 437 New Garen Town, Lahore, Pakistan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  •  *         *         *         *         *         * Solutions Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Solutronix Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and
  • —Solutronix Pvt. Ltd.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • 95A Solutions Tower, DHA Phase 8 Commercial Broadway, Lahore, Pakistan; and 54-B PAF Colony, Zarar Shaheed, Lahore, Pakistan; and Ground Floor, Almas Tower, Begum Salma Tassadaq Road, Near E Plomer, Lahore, Pakistan; and Suite 1&4, Hafeez Chamber 85 The Mall Lahore, Pakistan; and Gohawa Dak Dhana Bhatta Kohaar, Lahore, Pakistan; and Sehajpal Village, near New Airport Road, Lahore, Pakistan; and, Office #201, 2nd Floor, Capital Business Center, F-10 Markaz, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 156 The Mall, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. *         *         *         *         *         *         * RUSSIA  *         *         *         *         *         * Kaliningradnefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Kaliningradnefteprodukt LLC;
  • —Limited Liability Company Kaliningradnefteproduct; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —LLC Kaliningradnefteproduct. 22-b Komsomolskaya Ulitsa, Central District, Kaliningrad, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Kinef OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Kinef, LLC;
  • —Limited Liability Company Production Association Kirishinefteorgsintez; and
  • —LLC Kinef.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • d. 1 Shosse Entuziastov, Kirishi, Leningradskaya Oblast 187110, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Kirishiavtoservis OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Limited Liability Company Kirishiavtoservis; and
  • —LLC Kirishiavtoservis.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • lit A, 12 Smolenskaya Ulitsa, St. Petersburg 196084.  *         *         *         *         *         * Lengiproneftekhim OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Institut Po Proektirovaniyu Predpriyaty Neftepererabatyvayuschey I Neftekhimicheskoy Promyshlennosti, Limited Liability Company;
  • —Limited Liability Company Oil Refining and Petrochemical Facilities Design Institute; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —LLC Lengiproneftekhim. d. 94, Obvodnogo Kanala, nab, St. Petersburg 196084, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Media-Invest OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Limited Liability Company Media-Invest; and
  • —LLC Media-Invest.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • 17 Bld 1 Zubovsky Blvd, Moscow 119847, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Novgorodnefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Limited Liability Company Novgorodnefteproduct;
  • —LLC Novgorodnefteproduct; and
  • —Novgorodnefteprodukt LLC.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • d. 20 Germana Ulitsa, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya Oblast 173002, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Pskovnefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Limited Liability Company Marketing Association Pskovnefteproduct; and
  • —LLC Pskovnefteproduct.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • 4 Oktyabrsky Prospekt, Pskov 180000, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * SNGB AO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Closed Joint Stock Company Surgutneftegasbank (ZAO SNGB);
  • —Joint Stock Company Surgutneftegasbank; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —JSC BANK SNGB. 19 Kukuyvitskogo Street, Surgut 628400, Russia. SO Tvernefteprodukt OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Limited Liability Company Marketing Association Tvernefteproduct; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —LLC MA Tvernefteproduct. 6 Novotorzhskaya Ulitsa, Tver, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Sovkhoz Chervishevski PAO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —OJSC Sovkhoz Chervishevsky;
  • —Open Joint Stock Company Sovkhoz Chervishevsky; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —Sovkhoz Chervishevsky, JSC. d. 81 Sovetskaya Ulitsa, S. Chervichevsky, Tyumensky Rayon, Tyumensky Oblast 625519, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Strakhovove Obshchestvo Surgutneftegaz OOO, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Insurance Company Surgutneftegas, LLC;
  • —Limited Liability Company Insurance Company Surgutneftegas; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —LLC Insurance Company Surgutneftegas. 9/1 Lermontova Ulitsa, Surgut 628418, Russia.  *         *         *         *         *         * Surgutmebel OOO, a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —Limited Liability Company Syrgutmebel;
  • —LLC Surgutmebel;
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR. Presumption of denial 83 FR 6952, 2/16/18. 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • —LLC Syrgutmebel; and —Surgutmebel, LLC. Vostochnaya Industrial 1 Territory 2, Poselok Barsovo, Surgutsky District, Yugra, Khanty-Mansiysky Autonomos Okrug, Russia. SINGAPORE  *         *         *         *         *         * Mushko Logistics Pte. Ltd., Unit 04-01, Lip Hing Industrial Building, 3 Pemimpin Drive, Singapore; and 37 Pemimpin Drive, #06-12 MAPEX, Singapore; and Unit 04-01/03, Pandan Logistics Hub, 49 Pandan Road, Singapore; and 54 Lakeside Drive, #01-22 Caspian, Singapore. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * SOUTH SUDAN Ascom Sudd Operating Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —ASOC.
  • South Sudan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Dar Petroleum Operating Company, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —DPOC.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Zhongnan Hotel, on UNMISS Road, South Sudan. DietsmannNile, Tomping District opposite Arkel Restaurant, two blocks north of Airport Road, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Greater Pioneer Operating Co. Ltd, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —GPOC.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • South Sudan. Juba Petrotech Technical Services Ltd.
  • South Sudan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Nile Delta Petroleum Company, Hai Malakai neighborhood, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Nile Drilling and Services Company, Hai Amarat, Airport Road, West Yat Building, Third Floor, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Nile Petroleum Corporation, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Nilepet.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Tomping District opposite Arkel Restaurant, two blocks north of Airport Road, Juba, South Sudan. Nyakek and Sons, Jubatown District near the Ivory Bank, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Oranto Petroleum, Referendum Road, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Safinat Group.
  • South Sudan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • SIPET Engineering and Consultancy Services, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —SPECS.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Tomping District opposite Arkel Restaurant, two blocks north of Airport Road, Juba, South Sudan. South Sudan Ministry of Mining, Nimra Talata, P.O. Box 376, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • South Sudan Ministry of Petroleum, Ministries Road, Opposite the Presidential Palace, P.O. Box 376, Juba, South Sudan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Sudd Petroleum Operating Co., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —SPOC.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR.) Presumption of denial 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER AND
  •  3/22/18].
  • Tharjath, Unity State, South Sudan. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: March 16, 2018. Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05789 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0721] Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to the Importation of Live Animals: Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulations to the Importation of Live Animals: Guidance for Industry.” The purpose of this document is to state FDA's intent to exercise enforcement discretion regarding application of the regulation on foreign supplier verification programs (FSVPs) to importers of certain live animals. The enforcement discretion would apply to importers of live animals that are required to be slaughtered and processed at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulated establishments subject to USDA-administered Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements, or at State-inspected establishments subject to requirements equivalent to the Federal standard.

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0721 for “Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to the Importation of Live Animals: Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Mayl, Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4716.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Application of the Foreign Supplier Verification Program Regulation to the Importation of Live Animals: Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (21 CFR 10.115). We are implementing this guidance without prior public comment because we have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (§ 10.115(g)(2)). We made this determination because the guidance presents a less burdensome policy consistent with the public health. Although this guidance is immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA's GGP regulation. The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    Many live animals are imported into the United States for consumption as food. Most imported live animals (e.g., cattle and swine) that are for use as food are slaughtered under mandatory inspection by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and are processed at USDA-regulated establishments subject to USDA-administered Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements. The slaughter and processing of other live animals (e.g., farmed bison, boar, and elk) is under FDA's jurisdiction and is subject to FDA's current good manufacturing practice and, unless an exemption applies, preventive controls requirements (21 CFR part 117). Some animals under FDA jurisdiction (“FDA animals”) are slaughtered under voluntary inspection by USDA-FSIS.

    The importation into the United States of live animals for food use is subject to certain supplier verification requirements established in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353). FSMA amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to add, among other food safety requirements, provisions requiring verification of the safety of food imported from foreign suppliers. Section 805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384(c)) directs FDA to issue regulations on the content of FSVPs. We issued the FSVP final rule on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74225).

    The FSVP regulation requires food importers to develop, maintain, and follow an FSVP that provides adequate assurances that the foreign supplier uses processes and procedures that provide the same level of public health protection as those required under the preventive controls or produce safety provisions of FSMA (if applicable) and regulations implementing those provisions, as well as assurances that the imported food is not adulterated and that human food is not misbranded with respect to allergen labeling (21 CFR 1.502(a)).

    The food resulting from the slaughter and processing of certain live animals cannot be consumed without slaughter and processing at establishments subject to USDA-administered HACCP requirements (or equivalent state programs). In light of the role of another Federal agency with regard to these animals, FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the FSVP regulation for importers of live animals that are imported for slaughter and processing at USDA-regulated establishments subject to USDA-administered HACCP requirements, or imported for slaughter and processing under state requirements that are at least equivalent to the requirements for USDA-regulated establishments, including designated feeder animals. This means that we will not expect FSVP importers of live animals that are slaughtered and processed at USDA-inspected establishments subject to USDA-administered HACCP requirements (or State-inspected establishments subject to equivalent requirements) to meet any of the FSVP requirements.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 1, subpart L, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0752.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05843 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 33 CFR Part 401 [Docket No. SLSDC-2016-0006] RIN 2135-AA43 Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories AGENCY:

    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; and, Dangerous Cargo. These amendments are merely editorial or for clarification of existing requirements. The joint regulations will become effective in Canada on March 29, 2018. For consistency, because these are joint regulations under international agreement, and to avoid confusion among users of the Seaway, the SLSDC finds that there is good cause to make the U.S. version of the amendments effective on the same date.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on March 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.Regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662; 315/764-3200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; and, Dangerous Cargo. These changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations.

    Regulatory Notices: Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.Regulations.gov.

    The joint regulations will become effective in Canada on March 29, 2018.

    Regulatory Evaluation

    This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination

    I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of who are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

    Environmental Impact

    This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    Federalism

    The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 401

    Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

    Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation amends 33 CFR part 401 as follows:

    PART 401—SEAWAY REGULATIONS AND RULES Subpart A—Regulations 1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 401 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 401.12, revise paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 401.12 Minimum requirements—mooring lines and fairleads.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) All lines shall be led through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.

    3. In § 401.66, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 401.66 Applicable laws.

    (a) Where a vessel on the seaway is involved in an accident or a dangerous occurrence, the master of the vessel shall report the accident or occurrence, pursuant to the requirements of the Transportation Safety Board Regulations, to the nearest Seaway station and Transport Canada Marine Safety and Security or U.S. Coast Guard office as soon as possible and prior to departing the Seaway system.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 16, 2018. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Carrie Lavigne, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05781 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267; FRL-9975-78—Region 7] Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve certain elements of a 2013 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Iowa for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). States are required to have a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP submission establishing that the existing approved SIP has provisions necessary to address various requirements to address the new or revised NAAQS or to add such provisions. These SIPs submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure SIP 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.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7039, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Background II. What is being addressed in this document? III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP submission been met? IV. EPA's Response to Comments V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    EPA received Iowa's 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission on July 29, 2013. On September 29, 2017, EPA proposed to approve elements of this submission. See 82 FR 45550. In conjunction with the September 29, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct final rule (DFR) approving the same elements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 45497. However, in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by October 30, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received three comments prior to the close of the comment period which were adverse. EPA withdrew the DFR on November 14,2017. See 82 FR 54300. This action is a final rule based on the NPR. A detailed discussion of Iowa's SIP submission and EPA's rationale for approving the SIP submission were provided in the DFR and the associated Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comment we received.

    II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving certain elements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on July 29, 2013. Specifically, EPA is approving Iowa's submission with regard to the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevent of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M).

    EPA is not taking action at this time on the following elements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2), and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4).

    III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP submission been met?

    The state met the public notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state initiated public comment from April 6, 2013, to May 8, 2013. One comment was received and adequately addressed in the final SIP submission. This submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of the docket for this rulemaking, the submission meets the applicable substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    IV. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September 29, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on October 30, 2017. During this period, EPA received three public comments on the proposal to approve certain elements of Iowa's 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission, one of which is addressed below. The other two comments were not specific to this action, which is concerned with evaluating whether Iowa has the required elements in place to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS, and thus no further response is required.

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA must act on 110(a)(2)(D)(I) prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment), prong 2 (interference with maintenance), and 110(a)(2)(D)(II), prong 4 (interference with visibility protection.) The commenter asserted that EPA had stated in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the proposed action that “EPA WILL NOT ACT on [prongs 1, 2 and 4]” (emphasis added in comment). The commenter went on to state that EPA was therefore stating that it “will never act and does not need to act on these elements.” The commenter further stated that EPA does not have the discretionary authority to not act on a state's submission. The commenter indicated that if EPA does not believe prongs 1 and 2 are approvable, then EPA must disapprove; if EPA does not believe prong 4 is approvable due to the lack of an approved regional haze program, then EPA must disapprove the state's submission and promulgate a FIP to address regional haze. The commenter concluded by stating that the comment letter constitutes notice of intent to sue the agency for failure to perform its nondiscretionary duty under 110(k)(2) to act on Iowa's prongs 1, 2, and 4.

    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, EPA's TSD 1 does not state that “EPA will not act” on the SIP submission with respect to prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D), and does not imply that EPA “will never act and does not need to act on these elements.” Rather, the TSD states, “With this action, EPA will not be acting on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4.” That is, the TSD merely explains that EPA is not taking action on prongs 1, 2, and 4 in this rulemaking, not that it does not have an obligation to act on those elements of the SIP submission at issue, or that it will never do so.

    1www.regulations.gov, Docket: EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267, Supporting Documents; R7 Technical Support Document.

    EPA is not required to act on the prong 1, 2, or 4 elements of Iowa's 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission in this particular rulemaking. Although EPA agrees with the commenter that it has an obligation to take action under section 110(k) on SIP submissions, EPA disagrees with the argument that the Agency cannot elect to act on individual parts or elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission in separate rulemakings, as it deems appropriate. Section 110(k) of the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a SIP submission in full, disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, or conditionally approve it in full or in part, depending on the extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to approve state SIP submissions in separable parts was included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual measures in a SIP submission without either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).

    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k) of the CAA as affording the Agency the discretion to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, individual elements of Iowa's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) and (II), as severable from other infrastructure SIP elements and interprets section 110(k) as allowing it to act on individual severable elements or requirements in a SIP submission. In short, EPA has the discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various individual elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission, separately or together, as appropriate. EPA will address the remaining elements of Iowa's 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or actions.

    In EPA's rulemaking proposing to approve Iowa's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA stated that it was not taking any action with respect to the good neighbor provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this NAAQS. EPA understands the commenter's concern with respect to interstate transport. EPA will evaluate whether it is appropriate to make a finding of failure to submit in a separate action as the state did not make a submission to satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    With respect to the comment on prong 4 in particular, although EPA's evaluation of a state's SIP submission can be related to the status of that state's regional haze program,2 Iowa's regional haze program is not relevant here because EPA is not taking action on that element of Iowa's SO2 infrastructure SIP submission in this rulemaking.

    2 EPA's 2013 Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) provides that “[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP. . . . .” 2013 Guidance at 33, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.

    Finally, a public comment submitted on a proposal does not constitute notice of intent to sue the Administrator for failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty. Clean Air Act section 304(b)(2) requires 60 days' notice of a civil action against the Administrator for an alleged failure to perform a non-discretionary duty to the Administrator. EPA's regulations require that service of notice to the Administrator “shall be accomplished by certified mail addressed to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.” 40 CFR 54.2(a). The commenter's public comment submitted via regulations.gov does not satisfy the regulatory requirements for notices of intent to file suit against the Administrator for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty.

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Iowa's 2013 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS with regard to the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M).

    EPA is not taking action on sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2, and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4. The agency will act on those elements of the SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or action.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 May 21, 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, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 8, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Q—Iowa 2. Section 52.820 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(47) to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (47) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Statewide 7/23/2013 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), D(i)(II) prong 3 only, D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267; FRL-9975-78-Region 7]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-05631 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0517; FRL-9975-68—Region 7] Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve certain elements of a 2015 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Iowa for the 2012 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). States are required to have a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP submission establishing that the existing approved SIP has provisions necessary to address various requirements to address the new or revised NAAQS or to add such provisions. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure SIP 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.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0517. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Background II. What is being addressed in this document? III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revisions been met? IV. EPA's Response to Comments V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    EPA received Iowa's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission on December 22, 2015. On September 29, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain elements of this SIP submission. See 82 FR 45550. In conjunction with the September 29, 2017, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct final rule (DFR) approving the same elements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 45479. However, in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by October 30, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received one adverse comment prior to the close of the comment period. EPA withdrew the DFR on November 20, 2017. See 82 FR 55053. This action is a final rule based on the NPR. A detailed discussion of Iowa's SIP submission and EPA's rationale for approving the SIP submission were provided in the DFR and the associated Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comment we received.

    II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving certain elements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on December 22, 2015. Specifically, EPA is approving Iowa's submission with regard to the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M).

    EPA is not taking action at this time on the following elements that were addressed in Iowa's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2), and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4).

    III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revisions been met?

    The state met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state initiated public comment from October 14, 2015, to November 16, 2015. No comments were received. This submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of the docket for this rulemaking, the submission meets the applicable substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    IV. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September 29, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on October 30, 2017. During this period, EPA received one adverse comment as follows:

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA must act on 110(a)(2)(D)(I) prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment), prong 2 (interference with maintenance), and 110(a)(2)(D)(II), prong 4 (interference with visibility protection.) The commenter asserted that EPA had stated in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the proposed action that “EPA WILL NOT ACT on [prongs 1, 2 and 4]” (emphasis added in comment). The commenter claimed that EPA was therefore stating that it “will never act and does not need to act on these elements.” The commenter further stated that EPA does not have the discretionary authority to not act on a state's submission. The commenter indicated that if EPA does not believe prongs 1 and 2 are approvable, then EPA must disapprove; if EPA does not believe prong 4 is approvable due to the lack of an approved regional haze program, then EPA must disapprove the state's submission and promulgate a FIP to address regional haze. The commenter concluded by stating that the comment letter constitutes notice of intent to sue the agency for failure to perform its nondiscretionary duty under 110(k)(2) to act on Iowa's prongs 1, 2, and 4.

    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, EPA's TSD 1 does not state that “EPA will not act” on the SIP submission with respect to prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D), and does not imply that EPA “will never act and does not need to act on these elements.” Rather, the TSD states, “With this action, EPA will not be acting on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4.” That is, the TSD merely explains that EPA is not taking action on prongs 1, 2, and 4 in this rulemaking, not that it does not have an obligation to act on those elements of the SIP submission at issue, or that it will never do so.

    1www.regulations.gov, Docket: EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0517, Supporting Documents; R7 Technical Support Document

    EPA is not required to act on the prong 1, 2, or 4 elements of Iowa's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission in this particular rulemaking. Although EPA agrees with the commenter that it has an obligation to take action under section 110(k) on SIP submissions, EPA disagrees with the argument that the Agency cannot elect to act on individual parts or elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission in separate rulemakings, as it deems appropriate. Section 110(k) of the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a SIP submission in full, disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, or conditionally approve it in full or in part, depending on the extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to approve state SIP submissions in separable parts was included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual measures in a SIP submission without either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).

    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k) of the CAA as affording the Agency the discretion to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, individual elements of Iowa's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), as severable from other infrastructure SIP elements and interprets section 110(k) as allowing it to act on individual severable elements or requirements in a SIP submission. In short, EPA has the discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various individual elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission, separately or together, as appropriate. EPA will address the remaining elements of Iowa's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or actions.

    With respect to the comment on prong 4 in particular, although EPA's evaluation of a state's SIP submission can be related to the status of that state's regional haze program,2 Iowa's regional haze program is not relevant here because EPA is not taking action on that element of Iowa's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission in this rulemaking.

    2 EPA's 2013 Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) provides that “[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP. . . . . . .” 2013 Guidance at 33, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.

    Finally, a public comment submitted on a proposal does not constitute notice of intent to sue the Administrator for failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty. Clean Air Act section 304(b)(2) requires 60 days' notice of a civil action against the Administrator for an alleged failure to perform a non-discretionary duty to the Administrator. EPA's regulations require that service of notice to the Administrator “shall be accomplished by certified mail addressed to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.” 40 CFR 54.2(a). The commenter's public comment submitted via regulations.gov does not satisfy the regulatory requirements for notices of intent to file suit against the Administrator for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty.

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve elements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on December 22, 2015. Specifically, EPA is approving the infrastructure submission with regard to the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA is not taking action on elements of the SIP submission relevant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2), and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4). The agency will act on those elements of the SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or actions.

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 May 21, 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: March 7, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Q—Iowa 2. Section 52.820 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(49) to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (49) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 2012 annual fine Particulate Matter NAAQS Statewide 12/15/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert
  • Federal Register citation]
  • This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), D(i)(II) prong 3 only, D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0517; FRL-9975-68- Region 7].
    [FR Doc. 2018-05540 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0208; FRL-9975-69—Region 7] Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve certain elements of Iowa's 2013 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, and a 2017 amendment to that submission, for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). States are required to have a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP submission establishing that the existing approved SIP has provisions necessary to address various requirements to address the new or revised NAAQS or to add such provisions. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. 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.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0208. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Background II. What is being addressed in this document? III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revisions been met? IV. EPA's response to comments V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    EPA received Iowa's initial 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission on July 29, 2013. On March 9, 2017, EPA received a revised submission addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 20, 2017, EPA proposed to approve elements of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa. See 82 FR 43925. In conjunction with the September 20, 2017, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct final rule (DFR) approving the same elements of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 43836. However, in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA received adverse comments by October 20, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received three comments prior to the close of the comment period; one in favor of the rulemaking, and two adverse. EPA withdrew the DFR on November-17,2017. See 82 FR 54299. This action is a final rule based on the NPR. A detailed discussion of Iowa's SIP revision and EPA's rationale for approving the SIP revision were provided in the DFR and the associated Technical Support Document in the docket and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comment we received.

    II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving certain elements of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on July 29, 2013, and an amended SIP submission received on March 9, 2017. Specifically, EPA is approving Iowa's submissions with regard to the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2) and (D)(i)(II)—prevent of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M).

    EPA is not acting at this time on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4), which Iowa addressed in the infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revisions been met?

    The state met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state initiated public comment from April 6, 2013, to May 8, 2013. One comment was received and adequately addressed in the final SIP submission. The amended submission was placed on public comment January 12, 2017, to February 15, 2017. No comments were received. These submissions also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of the docket for this rulemaking, the submissions met the applicable substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    IV. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened September 20, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on October 20, 2017. During this period, EPA received three public comments on the proposal to approve certain elements of Iowa's 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP submission, one of which is addressed below. The second comment was supportive of EPA's proposed approval and the third was not specific to this action, which is concerned with evaluating whether Iowa has the required elements in place to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS, and thus no further response is required.

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA must act on the visibility portion of the state's submission (110(a)(2)(D)(II)—prong 4, and that EPA does not have the discretionary authority to not act on a state's submission. The commenter indicated that if EPA does not believe the Regional Haze program is approvable, then EPA should disapprove the state's plan.

    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We are not required to act on the prong 4 element of Iowa's 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP submission in this particular rulemaking. Although EPA agrees with the commenter that it has an obligation to take action under section 110(k) on SIP submissions, we disagree with the argument that the Agency cannot elect to act on individual parts or elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission in separate rulemakings, as it deems appropriate. Section 110(k) of the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a SIP submission in full, disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, or conditionally approve it in full or in part, depending on the extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to approve state SIP submissions in separable parts was included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual measures in a SIP submission without either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).

    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k) of the CAA as affording the Agency the discretion to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, individual elements of Iowa's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as severable from other infrastructure SIP elements and interprets section 110(k) as allowing it to act on individual severable elements or requirements in a SIP submission. In short, EPA has the discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various individual elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission, separately or together, as appropriate. EPA will address the remaining element of Iowa's 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or actions.

    With respect to Iowa's regional haze program, although EPA's evaluation of prong 4 can be related to the status of such a program,1 it is not relevant here because EPA is not taking action on prong 4 in this rulemaking.

    1 EPA's 2013 Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) provides that “[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP. . .” 2013 Guidance at 33, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve the following elements of section 110(a)(2) contained in Iowa's 2013 and 2017 SIP submissions: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2) and (D)(i)(II)—prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). The March 1, 2017, SIP amendment revised 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4. The agency will act on this element of the SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Is not subject to requirements of 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 May 21, 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, Nitrogen Dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 7, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Q—Iowa 2. Section 52.820 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(48) to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (48) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Statewide 7/23/2013, 3/1/2017 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, D(i)(II) prong 3 only, D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0208; FRL-9975-69—Region 7].
    [FR Doc. 2018-05537 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0850; FRL-9975-60—Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard and Revised Statutes AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Mexico to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality program are adequate to meet the state's responsibility under the CAA (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). EPA is also approving an update to the New Mexico statutes pertaining to conflicts of interest.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0850. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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 electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-6454, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

    I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our December 26, 2017 proposal (82 FR 60933). In that document we proposed to approve the August 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015, i-SIP submittals from the New Mexico Environment Department and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County pertaining to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in New Mexico and all four of the interstate transport requirements. We also proposed to approve as part of the SIP the updates to the New Mexico statutes pertaining to conflicts of interest. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal.

    II. Final Action

    We are approving the August 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015, i-SIP submittals pertaining to implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, including all the transport sub-elements (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)). We are also approving the portions of the updated statutes pertaining to conflicts of interest (CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)) in the New Mexico August 6, 2015 SIP submittal. The portions of the SIP submittal pertaining to the other Statute updates will be addressed at a later date.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the New Mexico Statutes as described in the Final Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 6 Office (please contact Sherry Fuerst in the For Further Information Contact section for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation (62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    • Is not 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 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 May 21, 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: March 16, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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.

    Subpart GG—New Mexico 2. In § 52.1620 paragraph (e) is amended: a. In the first table titled “EPA Approved New Mexico Statutes in the Current New Mexico SIP” by revising the title to read “EPA Approved New Mexico Statutes”; revising the first centered heading to read “New Mexico Statutes”; adding a new centered heading for “Chapter 10—Public Officers and Employees” followed by new entries for Sections 10-16-1 to 10-16-4, 10-16-6 to 10-16-9, 10-16-11, 10-16-13, and 10-16-14; adding a new centered heading for “Chapter 74—Environmental Improvement”; revising the entries for Sections 74-1-4 and 74-2-4; and removing the entries for “Article 16, Sections 10-16-1 through 10-16-16” and “Article 16, Supplemental”; b. In the second table titled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP” by adding an entry at the end for “Infrastructure and interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS”.

    The amendments read as follows:

    § 52.1620 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved New Mexico Statutes State
  • citation
  • Title/subject State
  • approval/
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval
  • date
  • Comments
    New Mexico Statutes Chapter 10—Public Officers and Employees 10-16-1 Short Title
  • Governmental Conduct Act
  • 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    10-16-2 Definitions 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-3 Ethical principles of public service; certain official acts prohibited; penalty 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-4 Official act for personal financial interest prohibited; disqualification from official act; providing a penalty 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-6 Confidential information 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-7 Contracts involving public officers or employees 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-8 Contracts involving former public officers or employees; representation of clients after government service 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-9 Contracts involving legislators; representation before state agencies 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-11 Codes of conduct 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Includes New Mexico Environmental Board Code of Conduct approved by the Governor on February 27, 1990 (64 FR 29235). 10-16-13 Prohibited bidding 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 10-16-14 Enforcement procedures 7/16/1990 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Chapter 74—Environmental Improvement 74-1-4 Environmental improvement board; creation; organization 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved for State Board Composition and Conflict of Interest Provisions. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74-2-4 Local authority 8/6/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Approved for for State Board Composition and Conflict of Interest Provisions. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Mexico SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State
  • submittal/effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Infrastructure and interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 8/6/2015, 12/8/2015 3/22/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] SIPs adopted by: NMED and City of Albuquerque
    [FR Doc. 2018-05765 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513; FRL-9975-71-Region 7] Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Elements of the Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Missouri for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). States are required to have a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP submission to establish that they have, or to add, the provisions necessary to address various requirements to address the new or revised NAAQS. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. 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.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515; EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513. All documents in the dockets are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Background a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS II. What is being addressed in this document? a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS e. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128 III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP submission been met? a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128 IV. EPA's Response to Comments a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128 V. What action is EPA taking? a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS e. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On October 6, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain elements of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri. See 82 FR 46741. In conjunction with the October 6, 2017, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct final rule (DFR) approving elements of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 46679. In the DFR, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted to EPA by November 6, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received two sets of comments prior to the close of the comment period; one set of comments was adverse, and one was not directly related to the action being taken by EPA. EPA withdrew the DFR on November 28,2017. See 82 FR 56172.

    b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On October 11, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain elements of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri. See 82 FR 47170. In conjunction with the October 11, 2017 NPR, EPA issued a DFR approving elements of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 47154. In the DFR, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted to EPA by November 13, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received five sets of comments prior to the close of the comment period; one set of comments was adverse, and four sets of comments were not related to the action being taken by EPA. Based on the adverse comment received, EPA withdrew the DFR on December 8,2017. See 82 FR 57848.

    c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    On October 6, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain elements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri. See 82 FR 46742. In conjunction with the October 6, 2017 NPR, EPA issued a DFR approving elements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 82 FR 46672. In the DFR, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted to EPA by November 6, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received three sets of comments prior to the close of the comment period; one set of comments was adverse, and two sets of comments were not directly related to the action being taken by EPA. EPA withdrew the DFR on November 28,2017. See 82 FR 56172.

    d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On October 11, 2017, EPA proposed to approve certain elements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri and two state statutes into the Missouri SIP. See 82 FR 47169. In conjunction with the October 11, 2017 NPR, EPA issued a DFR approving elements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP and the two state statutes into the SIP. See 82 FR 47147. In the DFR, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted to EPA by November 13, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received six sets of comments prior to the close of the comment period; three sets of comments were adverse, and three sets of comments were not directly related to the action. EPA withdrew the DFR on December 8, 2017. See 82 FR 57848.

    This action is a final rule based on the NPRs previously discussed. Detailed discussion of Missouri's 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions, and EPA's rationale for approving those SIP submissions, was provided in the DFRs and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comments we received.

    II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is only acting on the specific elements of the respective infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, identified in this action.

    EPA will act on CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4) for each of the infrastructure SIP submission in a separate action or actions, therefore that element is not addressed in this action.

    Technical Support Documents (TSD) are included as part of each of the dockets, noted above, and discuss the details of the actions being taken, including analysis of how the SIP submissions for each NAAQS meet the applicable CAA section 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.

    a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on July 8, 2013, as meeting the submission requirements of 110(a)(1). EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA is not acting on the elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), interfering with maintenance of the NAAQs (prong 2) because the state did not address those elements addressed in the infrastructure SIP submission at issue in this rulemaking action.

    b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on April 30, 2013, as meeting the applicable submission requirements of 110(a)(1). EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A) Through (H) (except (D)(i)(II)—protection of visibility (prong 4)), and (J) through (M).

    c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    EPA is approving elements of the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on July 8, 2013, as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) —prong 3, (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA is not acting on the elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) —prong 1 or prong 2 as those elements were not part of the state SIP submittal.

    d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    EPA is approving elements of the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri received on October 14, 2015, as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a0(1). EPA is approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA intends to act on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) —prong 1 and prong 2 in a subsequent rulemaking action.

    e. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128

    EPA is also approving the state's request to include Missouri State Statute section 105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 2014 into the Missouri SIP. These two statutes address aspects of the infrastructure requirements relating to state boards or bodies, or agency heads, involved with permitting or enforcement decisions found in section 128 of the CAA. The state included this SIP submittal in the infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, but EPA notes that this infrastructure SIP requirement is not NAAQS-specific.

    III. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP submission been met? a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for the Ozone infrastructure SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from The Missouri Department of Natural Resources held a public hearing and comment period from April 30, 2013 to June 6, 2013. EPA provided comments on May 23, 2013 and were the only commenters. A public hearing was held on May 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V for all elements except 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. EPA published a notice in the Federal Register, “Findings of Failure to Submit a Section 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone”. 1 Missouri was included in this finding because it had not made a complete “good neighbor” SIP submittal to meet the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2 elements.

    1 See 80 FR 39961 (August 12, 2015).

    b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public hearing on March 28, 2013, and a public comment period from February 25, 2013, to April 4, 2013. EPA provided comments to the state on April 3, 2013, and was the only commenter. The state revised its proposed SIP in response to EPA's comments and the revisions were contained in the SIP submitted to EPA on April 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

    c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from April 30, 2013, to June 6, 2013. EPA provided comments on May 23, 2013, and were the only commenters. A public hearing was held on May 30, 2013. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V for all elements except 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2.

    d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128

    The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state held a public comment period from July 27, 2015, to September 3, 2015. The state received no comments during the public comment period. A public hearing was held on August 27, 2015. The submission satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

    IV. EPA's Response to Comments

    All comments on the proposed actions are available in the dockets noted in this action. We only respond to adverse comments in this action. No changes were made to the proposals in this final action after consideration of the adverse comments received.

    a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened October 6, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on November 6, 2017. During this period, EPA received two sets of comments: One in support of the rule and one which was adverse. The adverse comment is addressed below.

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA must take action on Missouri's submission regarding interstate transport. The commenter asserted that the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update does not cover all sources of interstate transport and that in EPA's own words is only a “partial remedy” for transport related to the ozone NAAQS. The commenter thus argued that EPA must address the remainder of Missouri's contribution to ambient ozone levels in neighboring states in this rulemaking and that EPA has a nondiscretionary duty to issue a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) when a state fails to submit an approvable state SIP submission.

    EPA's response: In EPA's rulemaking proposing to approve Missouri's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the Agency stated that it was not taking any action in this rulemaking with respect to the good neighbor provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Missouri did not address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, and thus there is no such submission upon which EPA either proposed to take action or could take action on under section 110(k) of the CAA in this rulemaking.

    EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns about interstate transport of air pollutants and agrees in general with the commenter that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA require states to submit, within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, a SIP submission which adequately addresses cross-state air pollution under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As noted above in section III. a. of this document, EPA has already issued a “Findings of Failure to Submit a Section 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone”, in August 2015, which triggered EPA's obligation under section 110(c) to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).2 As the commenter notes, EPA has already taken steps to address this obligation when it promulgated the CSAPR update in June 2016.3 EPA will take any further steps that may be necessary to address its obligation under sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(c) with respect to the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in a separate action.

    2 See 80 FR 39961 (August 12, 2015).

    3 See 81 FR 41838 (August 12, 2016).

    b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened October 11, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on November 13, 2017. During this period, EPA received five sets of comments: One set of comments was adverse, and four sets of comments were not directly related to the action being taken by EPA in this rulemaking. The adverse comment is addressed below.

    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA failed to review this rule against the president's March 28, 2017 executive order regarding economic growth and energy independence.

    EPA's response: Section 110(k)requires EPA to take action on a state's SIP submission, and section 110(k)(3) provides that EPA “shall” approve a state's SIP submission if it meets the applicable statutory requirements. In this case, EPA has determined that Missouri's infrastructure SIP submission for this NAAQS met the applicable requirements contained in section 110(a)(2), as explained in this document. Therefore, EPA lacks discretion to decline to take action on, or to disapprove, the SIP submission or to require changes based on consideration of the Executive Order.

    c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened October 6, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on November 6, 2017. During this period, EPA received three sets of comments: One set of comments was adverse, and two sets of comments were not directly related to the action being taken by EPA. The adverse comments are addressed below.

    Comment 1: The commenter stated that EPA must issue a finding of failure to submit for the interstate transport provisions of the infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    EPA's response: In EPA's rulemaking proposing to approve Missouri's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA stated that it was not taking any action with respect to the good neighbor provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this NAAQS. EPA understands the commenter's concern with respect to interstate transport. EPA will evaluate whether it is appropriate to make a finding of failure to submit in a separate action.

    d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened October 11, 2017, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on November 13, 2017. During this period, EPA received six sets of comments: three set of comments were adverse, and three sets of comments were not directly related to the action being taken by EPA. Where sets of comments were similar in content, EPA grouped those comments into a single comment and response where appropriate. The adverse comments are addressed below.

    Comment 1: The commenter stated that EPA does not have the discretion to act separately on elements of an infrastructure SIP submission, particularly with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (prong 1 and prong 2), in a separate rulemaking. The commenter also asserted that its comment letter constituted the commenter's “notice of intent to sue the agency for failure to perform its nondiscretionary duty under 110(k)(2).”

    EPA's Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern for the interstate transport of air pollutants and agrees in general with the commenter that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require states to submit, within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, a SIP submission which adequately addresses interstate transport of air pollution under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA disagrees with the commenter's argument that EPA cannot approve other elements of an infrastructure SIP submission without also taking action on the elements related to interstate transport.

    EPA agrees with the commenter that it has an obligation to take action under section 110(k) on SIP submissions. However, EPA disagrees with the commenter's argument that the Agency cannot elect to act on individual parts or elements of a state's infrastructure SIP submission in separate rulemaking actions, as it deems appropriate. Section 110(k)of the CAA authorizes EPA to approve a SIP submission in full, disapprove it in full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, or conditionally approve it in full or in part, depending on the extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to approve state SIP submissions in separable parts was included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual measures in a SIP submission without either approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).

    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k) of the CAA as affording the Agency the discretion to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, individual elements of Missouri's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, separate and apart from any action with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from other infrastructure SIP elements and interprets section 110(k) as allowing it to act on individual severable elements or requirements in a SIP submission. In short, EPA believes it has the discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various individual elements of the State's infrastructure SIP submission, separately or together, as appropriate. EPA will address the remaining elements of Missouri's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, infrastructure SIP submission in a separate rulemaking action or actions.

    Finally, a public comment submitted on a proposal does not constitute notice of intent to sue the Administrator for failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty. Clean Air Act section 304(b)(2) requires 60 days' notice of a civil action against the Administrator for an alleged failure to perform a non-discretionary duty to the Administrator. EPA's regulations require that service of notice to the Administrator “shall be accomplished by certified mail addressed to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.” 40 CFR 54.2(a). The commenter's public comment submitted via regulations.gov does not satisfy the regulatory requirements for notices of intent to file suit against the Administrator for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty.

    Comment 2: Two commenters argued that EPA should not approve the state statutes, 105.483(5) and 105.485 RSMo 2014, into the SIP as the commenters do not believe the statutes adequately meet conflict of interest requirements as required by section 110(a)(2)(E) and CAA section 128.

    EPA's Response: EPA believes that the commenter misunderstood the purpose of these SIP submissions related to section 128. EPA has already previously approved a SIP submission from Missouri as meeting the requirements of section 128. See 78 FR 37457. The Agency's analysis of that SIP submission appeared in the proposal notice for that rulemaking. See 78 FR 21281 at page 21288. In this rulemaking, Missouri is adding additional provisions to its SIP. The state statutes, 105.483(5) and 105.485 RSMo 2014, approved into the SIP by this action, are meant to strengthen the SIP and are not the only SIP provisions that pertain to section 128. EPA believes that the commenter may have wrongly assumed that these latest additions to the SIP are the only provisions relevant to section 128 in the Missouri SIP.

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the specific elements of the respective infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, identified in this action.

    EPA will act on CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4 for each of the infrastructure SIP submission for these NAAQS in a separate rulemaking action or actions.

    a. 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    EPA is taking final action to approve elements of the July 8, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the SIP submission as meeting the submission requirements of section 110(a)(1) and approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M).

    b. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    EPA is taking final action to approve elements of the April 30, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is approving the submission as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1) and approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A) through (H) (except (D)(i)(II)—prong 4), and (J) through (M).

    c. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    EPA is taking final action to approve elements of the July 8, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is approving the submission as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1) and approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA is not acting on the elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prong 1 or prong 2 because those elements were not addressed in the SIP submittal.

    d. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    EPA is taking final action to approve elements of the October 14, 2015, infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Missouri, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is approving the submission as meeting the submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1) and approving the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA intends to act on elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prong 1 and prong 2 in a subsequent rulemaking.

    e. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)/section 128

    EPA is taking final action to the state's request to include Missouri State Statute section 105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 2014 into the Missouri SIP. These two statutes address aspects of the infrastructure requirements relating to state boards or bodies, or agency heads, involved with permitting or enforcement decisions found in section 128 of the CAA. The state included this SIP revision in the infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, but EPA notes that this infrastructure SIP requirement is not NAAQS-specific.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 May 21, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 7, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entries “(63) Sections 110 (a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS”, ”(64) Sections 110 (a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS”, “(65) Sections 110 (a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS”, “(72) Sections 110 (a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS”, and “(73) Missouri State Statute section 105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 2014” in numerical order to read as follows:
    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (e)* * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (63) Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide 7/8/13 3/22/18, [insert Federal Register citation] This action approves the following CAA elements: 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2 are addressed by Federal Implementation Plans. 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0356; FRL-9975-71-Region 7]. (64) Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Statewide 4/30/13 3/22/18, [insert Federal Register citation] This action approves the following CAA elements: 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0268; FRL-9975-71-Region 7]. (65) Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Statewide 7/8/13 3/22/18, [insert Federal Register citation] This action approves the following CAA elements: 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is not acting on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. EPA intends to act on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4 in a separate action. [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0515; FRL-9975-71-Region 7]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * (72) Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Statewide 10/14/15 3/22/18, [insert Federal Register citation] This action approves the following CAA elements: 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513; FRL-9975-71-Region 7]. (73) Missouri State Statute section 105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 2014 Statewide 10/14/15 3/22/18, [insert Federal Register citation] EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0513; FRL-9975-71-Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05630 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9975-74-Region 9] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces the deletion of the surface soil portion of the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines (PCPL) Superfund Site (Site) located in Fillmore, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial deletion pertains only to the surface soil at the Site. The groundwater will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part of this action. EPA and the State of California, through the Department of Toxic Substances Control, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, the deletion of the soil portion of the Site does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This action is effective March 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information and 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 electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are:

    Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, Room 3110, San Francisco, California, Hours: 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.; (415) 947-8717.

    Site Repository: Fillmore Library, 502 2nd Street, Fillmore, California. Call (805) 524-3355 for hours of operation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Holly Hadlock, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (SFD-7-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3171, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The portion of the Site to be deleted from the NPL is the surface soils at the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site, Fillmore, California. A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for this Site was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 60943-60946) on December 26, 2017. The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion was January 25, 2018.

    Eight public comments were received: Five supported EPA's decision to delete the surface soil from the NPL, two opposed, and one was not related to the proposed partial deletion. The commenters who opposed the action want the soil portion of the Site to remain on the NPL. EPA believes the partial deletion action is appropriate because the NPL deletion criterion established by the NCP has been met; the responsible party, Texaco, Inc., has implemented all appropriate response actions for surface soil set forth in the 2011 ROD Amendment, which selected the remedy for contaminated soils at the Site. Based on available data, EPA has determined that no further response action for soil at the Site is necessary. EPA will conduct five-year reviews to determine if the cleanup remains protective of human health and the environment. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, on www.regulations.gov, and in the local repositories listed above.

    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action at the site. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: March 12, 2018. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry for “Pacific Coast Pipe Lines” to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List

    Table 1—General Superfund Section State Site name City/County Notes a *         *         *         *         *         *         * CA Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Fillmore P *         *         *         *         *         *         * a = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50). *         *         *         *         *         *         * P = Sites with partial deletion(s). *         *         *         *         *         *         * [FR Doc. 2018-05752 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 180123063-8063-01] RIN 0648-XF987 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Catch Limits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; inseason adjustment of annual catch limits.

    SUMMARY:

    This action transfers unused quota of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder from the Atlantic sea scallop fishery to the Northeast multispecies fishery for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. This transfer implements an inseason adjustment of annual catch limits authorized by regulations implementing the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that apply when the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocation of yellowtail flounder. The transfer is intended to achieve optimum yield for both fisheries while ensuring the total annual catch limit is not exceeded.

    DATES:

    Effective March 21, 2018, through April 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Claire Fitz-Gerald, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS is required to estimate the total amount of yellowtail flounder bycatch in the scallop fishery by January 15 each year. NMFS must determine if the scallop fishery is expected to catch less than 90 percent of its Georges Bank (GB) or Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) (50 CFR 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(C)). If so, the Regional Administrator (RA) may reduce the scallop fishery sub-ACL for these stocks to the amount projected to be caught, and increase the groundfish fishery sub-ACL for these stocks up to the same amount. This adjustment is intended to help achieve optimum yield for both fisheries while ensuring the total ACLs are not exceeded.

    Based on the most recent catch information available, we project that the scallop fishery will have unused quota in the 2017 fishing year for the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder stock. Because the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocation of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, this rule reduces the scallop sub-ACL for this stock to the upper limit projected to be caught, and increases the groundfish sub-ACL for this stock by the same amount, effective March 21, 2018, through April 30, 2018. This transfer is based on the upper limit of expected SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch by the scallop fishery, which is expected to minimize any risk of an ACL overage by the scallop fishery while still providing additional fishing opportunities for groundfish vessels.

    Table 1 summarizes the revisions to the 2017 fishing year sub-ACLs, and Table 2 shows the revised allocations for the groundfish fishery as allocated between the sectors and common pool based on final sector membership for fishing year 2017.

    Table 1—Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Sub-ACLs Stock Fishery Initial
  • sub-ACL
  • (mt)
  • Change
  • (mt)
  • Revised sub-ACL
  • (mt)
  • Percent change
    SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Groundfish 187.5 +29.9 217.4 +16 Scallop 34.0 −29.9 4.1 −88
    Table 2—Allocations for Sectors and the Common Pool [in pounds] Sector name SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder Revised Original Common Pool 92,341 79,641 Fixed Gear Sector 1,774 1,530 Maine Coast Community Sector 6,104 5,264 Maine Permit Bank 152 131 NCCS 3,358 2,896 NEFS 1 NEFS 10 2,624 2,263 NEFS 11 84 72 NEFS 12 50 43 NEFS 13 100,781 86,920 NEFS 2 8,293 7,152 NEFS 3 316 273 NEFS 4 11,268 9,718 NEFS 5 100,300 86,506 NEFS 6 25,259 21,785 NEFS 7 11,847 10,218 NEFS 8 25,013 21,573 NEFS 9 41,805 36,055 New Hampshire Permit Bank 0 0 Sustainable Harvest Sector 1 1,511 1,303 Sustainable Harvest Sector 2 10,761 9,281 Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 35,643 30,741 Sector Total 386,944 333,726 Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the Northeast multispecies fishery and are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment for this inseason adjustment because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest and would prevent the positive benefits the rule is intended to provide. NMFS is required to project GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch in the scallop fishery on or around January 15 of each year so that unused quota can be transferred to the groundfish fishery. The groundfish fishing year ends on April 30, 2018. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment would likely prevent this action from being implemented before the end of the fishing year, thereby precluding the additional economic benefits that would be created through additional GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder being made available to groundfish vessels. This adjustment, which implements provisions of 5 U.S.C. part 648, is routine and formulaic, and there was extensive public comment during the development of this provision in the FMP and its implementing regulations. Furthermore, there is no need to allow the industry additional time to adjust to this rule, because this rule does not require any compliance or other action on the part of individual scallop or groundfish fishermen. Thus, prior notice and comment for this rule would provide no benefits to industry and the public, while at the same time it would preclude timely implementation of this action and the intended economic benefits to the groundfish fishery. Giving effect to this rule as soon as possible will help achieve optimum yield in the fishery. For these same reasons, the NMFS Assistant Administrator also finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness for this action.

    Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05869 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 56 Thursday, March 22, 2018 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [Docket No. PRM-72-8; NRC-2018-0017] Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing, and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking from Raymond Lutz and Citizens Oversight, Inc. (the Petitioners), dated January 2, 2018, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations regarding spent nuclear fuel storage systems. The petition was docketed by the NRC on January 22, 2018, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-72-8. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-72-8 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comment on this petition.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by June 5, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0017. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6244, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0017 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0017.

    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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0017 in your comment submission.

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

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

    II. The Petitioners

    The petition was filed by Raymond Lutz and Citizens Oversight Inc. Raymond Lutz is the founder and president of Citizens Oversight, Inc., a nonprofit organization.

    III. The Petition

    The petitioners are requesting that the NRC revise part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) regarding spent nuclear fuel (SNF) stored in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at nuclear power stations. The petitioners are concerned that there is a mismatch between the NRC's 10 CFR part 72 regulations that define requirements for ISFSIs and the current situation, which the petitioners assert is that surface storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue indefinitely. The petitioners observe that 10 CFR part 72 was initially developed at a time when a repository was anticipated to be available in 1998 and, therefore, this PRM would address concerns with a much longer time frame for surface storage. The petitioners make 14 contentions that propose specific revisions to 10 CFR part 72 that would address issues concerning the indefinite surface storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems. In particular, the petitioners request that 10 CFR part 72 be revised to require: a 1,000 year design life goal for spent nuclear storage systems; estimates for the operating costs over the design life; determination of the safety margins over the design life; and time limited aging analyses demonstrating that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform for the design life. The petition may be found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18022B207.

    IV. Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 72 “regarding spent nuclear fuel.” The petitioners believe that “the actual situation has now changed, while the NRC regulations have not changed sufficiently to respect the current reality” of ongoing storage at nuclear plants and that the NRC should use a “Hardened, Extended-life, Local, Monitored Surface Storage” (HELMS) type of approach as further described in a white paper submitted with the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML18022B213).

    The petitioners contend that there is a timeframe difference between that of the useful life of an operating commercial nuclear plant and the storage of SNF at those nuclear plants indefinitely. The petitioners further contend that the “license term and renewal periods for the facility operating license and CoC are defined to be (up to) 40 years, and the design life is only implied as perhaps several multiples of the licensing period.” The petitioners' position is “that the design life should be explicitly defined as the initial 1,000 years.”

    The HELMS approach would require that SNF containers be designed for a 1,000-year life goal “while still allowing a 40-year license term.” The petitioners provided a specific proposal for the HELMS approach to assist their description; however, the petitioners emphasized “that the HELMS proposal does not rely on the adoption of this specific proposal as long as the extended-life criterion is satisfied.” The petitioners stated that the 1,000-year design life goal “is likely NOT feasible without some monitoring and replacing part of the system on regular intervals.”

    V. Request Under § 2.206 Seeking Enforcement Action

    The petitioners also request enforcement action under § 2.206 of the NRC's regulations. The petitioners assert a violation of § 72.106, regarding the controlled area of an ISFSI or monitored retrievable storage installation, and ask for enforcement-related action, as appropriate; however, the petitioners have not provided information to support this charge. The NRC considered the request for review to determine whether the claim qualifies for enforcement-related action. The petitioners' claim does not constitute a valid request for action under § 2.206. The petitioners do not specify the action requested but leave it up to the NRC to determine (based on the limited information provided on page 10 of the petition) whether enforcement is warranted of a licensee's ISFSI or monitored retrievable storage installation. Although the petitioners allege that a licensee has violated the requirement, the petition does not provide the facts that constitute the basis for taking enforcement action. Therefore, the petitioners' claim does not meet the requirements for § 2.206 enforcement action.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05776 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1081 [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0002] Request for Information Regarding Bureau Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Request for information; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 5, 2018, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) published a Request for Information Regarding Bureau Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings (RFI), which provided that comments must be received on or before April 6, 2018. On February 22, 2018, the Bureau received a letter from two industry trade associations requesting a 30-day comment period extension for this RFI and for two other Bureau Requests for Information. The additional time is requested in order to allow commenters to develop meaningful responses to the RFI and the other identified Requests for Information. The Bureau believes the extension will allow all stakeholders the opportunity to provide more robust responses. In response to this request, the Bureau has determined that a 30 day extension of the comment period is appropriate.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Request for Information Regarding Bureau Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, published February 5, 2018, at 83 FR 5055 has been extended. Comments must now be received on or before May 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0002, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include Docket No. CFPB-2018-0002 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Comment Intake, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Instructions: The Bureau encourages the early submission of comments. All submissions must include the document title and docket number. Please note the number of the topic on which you are commenting at the top of each response (you do not need to address all topics). Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275.

    All submissions in response to this request for information, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Samburg, Counsel, at 202-435-9710. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (Act) required the Bureau to prescribe rules establishing such procedures as may be necessary to carry out hearings and adjudications conducted pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5563. 12 U.S.C. 5563(e). On July 28, 2011, the Bureau published an interim final rule seeking comment and prescribing rules establishing such hearings and procedures, with the exception of rules relating to the issuance of a temporary cease-and-desist order (TCDO) pursuant to section 1053(c) of the Act. 76 FR 45338 (July 28, 2011). The Bureau responded to comments received and published a final rule on June 29, 2012. 77 FR 39058 (June 29, 2012). This rule was codified at 12 CFR part 1081, subparts A-D. The Bureau published an interim final rule seeking comment and prescribing rules on TCDOs on September 26, 2013. 78 FR 59163 (Sept. 26, 2013). The Bureau received a single comment on this rule. Following consideration of the comment, the Bureau adopted the interim final rule without change on June 18, 2014. 79 FR 34622 (June 18, 2014). This rule was codified at 12 CFR part 1081, subpart E. Collectively, the rules codified at 12 CFR part 1081 are titled “Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings” (Rules). The Bureau issued a Request for Information (RFI) related to the Rules on February 5, 2018, 83 FR 5055, and now extends the period for comments responding to that RFI.

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05780 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN 3245-AG16 Small Business Size Standards; Alternative Size Standard for 7(a), 504, and Disaster Loan Programs AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    SBA is seeking public input to assist in establishing a permanent alternative size standard for its 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs. SBA also invites suggestions on sources of relevant data and information that SBA should evaluate in developing a permanent alternative size standard and assessing its impact. Finally, SBA also seeks input from interested parties on a potential proposal to apply the permanent alternative size standard as an alternative to using industry based size standards for small business applicants under its Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program.

    DATES:

    SBA must receive comments to this ANPRM on or before May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG16 by one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov, following the instructions for submitting comments; or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office of Size Standards, 409 Third Street SW, Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416.

    SBA will post all comments to this ANPRM on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, you must submit such information either by mail to the U.S. Small Business Administration, Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office of Size Standards, 409 Third Street SW, Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416, or by email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review your information and determine whether it will make the information public. Requests to redact or remove posted comments cannot be honored and the request to redact/remove posted comments will be posted as a new comment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Khem R. Sharma, Office of Size Standards, by phone at (202) 205-7189 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    SBA establishes small business size definitions, commonly known as “size standards,” for private sector industries in the United States to determine eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs, including the SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs (“Business Loan Programs”). These size standards are established by 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry, typically based either on average annual receipts or on average number of employees. SBA uses financial assets and refining capacity to measure the size of a few specialized industries. See, 13 CFR part 121, Small Business Size Regulations.

    On September 27, 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (“Jobs Act”) was enacted (Pub. L. 111-240). Section 1116 of the Jobs Act added a new Section 3(a)(5) to the Small Business Act that directed SBA to establish an alternative size standard using maximum tangible net worth and average net income for applicants of the SBA's Business Loan Programs. The Jobs Act also established for applicants for the SBA's Business Loan Programs a temporary alternative size standard of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and of not more than $5 million in the average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) of the applicant for the 2 full fiscal years before the date of the application (referred to as “Interim Rule”), and it provided that this temporary statutory alternative size standard would remain in effect until such time as SBA established a new alternative size standard for the Business Loan Programs through rulemaking. 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(5). Prior to that, SBA had a lower permanent regulatory alternative size standard that applied to the 504 Loan Program, and temporarily applied, for the period beginning on May 5, 2009 and ending on September 30, 2010, to the 7(a) Loan Program. 13 CFR 120.301(b)(2).

    On September 29, 2010, SBA issued Information Notice 5000-1175 (available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/bank_5000-1175_0.pdf) providing that, effective September 27, 2010, the new statutory temporary alternative size standard applied to its Business Loan Programs, thereby replacing and superseding the lower existing alternative size standard of $8.5 million in tangible net worth and $3 million in average net income, set forth in 13 CFR 121.301(b)(2). The Information Notice further stated that the new statutory alternative size standard would remain in effect until such time as SBA established a permanent alternative size standard for the Business Loan Programs through rulemaking. The Information Notice also stated that SBA's disaster loan program, surety bond guarantee program, small business investment company program, and small business development and contracting programs, as well as other federal programs utilizing SBA's industry based size standards were not affected by the temporary statutory alternative size standard, and the current standards for those programs in 13 CFR part 121 remained in effect.

    Because of the difficulty of obtaining relevant data, SBA has not yet established a new permanent tangible net worth and net income based alternative size standard for its Business Loan Programs, so the Agency continues to use the temporary statutory alternative size standard (referred to in the Jobs Act as the “Interim Rule”) to determine eligibility for a small business concern under SBA's Business Loan Programs, in addition to using the industry based size standards. Under the Interim Rule, a Business Loan Program applicant is eligible either under its industry based size standard or if it meets the temporary statutory alternative size standard of $15 million in tangible net worth and $5 million in average net income.

    SBA is statutorily authorized to provide access to capital to small businesses that do not have credit available elsewhere from non-Federal sources on reasonable terms and conditions. Aiming to expand credit opportunities for small businesses under the distressed credit conditions in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 Great Recession, Congress, through the Jobs Act, temporarily increased by statute the level of the existing regulatory alternative size standard for the Business Loan Programs by raising the maximum thresholds of tangible net worth from $8.5 million to $15 million and of average net income from $3 million to $5 million, and it provided that the temporary statutory alternative size standard would remain in effect for the Business Loan Programs until such time as SBA established a new permanent alternative size standard.

    A review of SBA's internal data on its Business Loan Programs shows that the temporary statutory alternative size standard may have enabled some small businesses that were not otherwise eligible under their industry based size standards to receive 7(a) or 504 Loans (“Business Loans”). However, SBA's internal data systems for its Business Loan Programs lack the necessary detailed electronic data that would allow for an assessment of the exact impact of the Interim Rule on small business loan applicants. Since the Agency's electronic systems only include data regarding the number of employees and the NAICS industry for loan applicants, but not data regarding average annual receipts, tangible net worth or average net income, SBA is not easily able to calculate the exact number of businesses that qualified under the temporary statutory alternative size standard that otherwise could not have qualified under their industry based size standards. Similarly, due to electronic data limitations, SBA cannot easily identify industries or industry sectors in which the temporary statutory alternative size standard helped small businesses the most or the least in accessing SBA Business Loans.

    Again, due to the lack of relevant electronic data, SBA is also not in a position to determine whether the Interim Rule is appropriate under the current economic environment or needs to be modified when SBA establishes a permanent alternative size standard.

    In an effort to establish a permanent alternative size standard for its Business Loan Programs as mandated by the Jobs Act, SBA has taken steps to gather the information and data necessary to develop an analysis to support the creation of a new permanent alternative size standard based on tangible net worth and average net income. However, the Economic Census data that SBA examines to establish the industry based size standards does not contain information on tangible net worth or average net income by industry. Furthermore, while SBA collects and maintains limited relevant electronic data on applicants for its Business Loan Programs (such as the number of employees for each loan recipient, but not average annual receipts, tangible net worth, or average net income), SBA's electronic internal data does not show whether an applicant for its Business Loan Programs was determined to be eligible under its industry based size standard or under the alternative size standard. Similarly, the electronic data does not include information on the numbers or amounts of loan approvals that were issued under the industry based size standard or under the temporary statutory alternative size standard.

    As such, the only electronic data on size for small business applicants approved for loans through the SBA's Business Loan Programs available for review are the number of employees and the NAICS industry. In an effort to estimate the percentage of loans that were approved under the temporary statutory alternative size standard, SBA examined its electronic internal data on its Business Loan Programs for the three most recent fiscal years (FY 2015 through FY 2017). For this analysis, SBA converted industry based receipts-based size standards to the equivalent number of employees using the receipts-to-employees ratios from the special tabulations of the 2012 Economic Census (http://www.census.gov/econ/census/). If the data showed that the number of employees of a loan recipient exceeded its industry based employee size standard (or employee equivalents in the case of receipts-based size standards), SBA deemed for the purposes of this analysis that the loan was approved under the temporary statutory alternative size standard. Conversely, if the loan recipient's number of employees was equal to or less than the industry based size standard, it was deemed for the purposes of this analysis that the loan could have been approved under the industry based size standard.

    Based on the results obtained from this analysis, SBA estimates that about 1.3% of the 207,161 total loan approvals issued during FY 2015-2017 went to firms that exceeded their industry based size standard, thereby implying that these firms were most likely qualified only under the temporary statutory alternative size standard. SBA estimates the total value of these loans to be $3.1 billion, or 3.6% of $86.9 billion in total loans approved during that period. Such a small percentage of loan approvals issued to firms that exceeded their industry size standard (1.3%) suggests that a vast majority of small businesses receiving loans through SBA's Business Loan Programs would have qualified under their industry based size standards and would not be impacted significantly by a modification, if any, to the Interim Rule.

    Although useful, the analyzed data is selective in that it includes only those firms that were approved for and received an SBA Business Loan, but not those that applied and were not approved nor those interested in applying in the future. This data does not allow SBA to accurately determine the broader impact of a change to the Interim Rule, nor does it provide the Agency with a robust source of information from which a new permanent alternative size standard can be developed. Furthermore, while SBA has approximated the percentage of all loan approvals issued to small businesses that qualified only under the Interim Rule, it is not possible to determine the precise impact because the available electronic data lacks tangible net worth and average net income data for the impacted population of small businesses. Data on tangible net worth and average net income for the impacted businesses, if available from other sources, may reveal additional insights into the results of SBA's analysis of FY 2015-2017 loan data.

    Additionally, SBA is statutorily authorized to make direct loans under the EIDL Program to small businesses that do not have credit available elsewhere and that have suffered a substantial economic injury as a result of a disaster. 15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2). Historically, the size standards applicable to small business concerns that apply for loans under the EIDL Program have been the same industry based size standards applicable to small business applicants for the Business Loan Programs. See, 13 CFR 123.300(b). Although the temporary statutory alternative size standard established by the Jobs Act does not apply to the EIDL Program, SBA is considering applying the new permanent alternative size standard established for the Business Loan Programs to the EIDL Program as an alternative to industry based size standards.

    Request for Comments

    Against the above backdrop, in this ANPRM, SBA seeks comment on the following issues.

    1. SBA seeks comment on whether or not the level of the temporary statutory alternative size standard under the Interim Rule (i.e., $15 million in tangible net worth and $5 million in average net income) is appropriate under the current credit environment and as a new permanent alternative size standard. Commenters in support of the level in the Interim Rule should provide justification, along with supporting data and analysis to support their position. Similarly, commenters who believe the level established in the Interim Rule is not appropriate as a permanent alternative size standard should suggest, along with supporting data and analysis, a different alternative size standard which they believe would be more appropriate. The suggested alternative size standard must be based on tangible net worth and average net income as required by section 3(a)(5) of the Small Business Act. 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(5).

    2. SBA seeks comment on the impact of using an alternative size standard on small businesses seeking loans through its Business Loan Programs. Specifically, SBA welcomes information on industries/sectors where small businesses benefit the most or do not benefit at all from the use of an alternative size standard. Similarly, SBA is also looking for data on the number of businesses approved for SBA's Business Loans under the temporary statutory alternative size standard that otherwise could not have been approved under their industry based size standards.

    3. SBA invites suggestions on sources of relevant data and information, especially tangible net worth and average net income of applicants to SBA's Business Loan Programs, that SBA can evaluate to assess the impact of the Interim Rule on small businesses and use in developing a new permanent alternative size standard and in estimating the impact of the new permanent alternative size standard.

    4. SBA invites comments from interested parties on the proposal to apply the same new permanent alternative size standard established for the Business Loan Programs to the EIDL Program as an alternative to industry based size standards.

    5. SBA also seeks comment on how the Interim Rule has affected the processes used by lenders participating in the Business Loan Programs and what effects a permanent alternative size standard would have on application processes and processing times.

    6. SBA invites comment on the effects of the Interim Rule on conventional small business lending. Specifically, SBA welcomes input on whether, and to what extent, if any, SBA Business Loans approved under the Interim Rule have substituted for or displaced directly or indirectly conventional small business lending, or whether such SBA Business Loans played more of a supplementary role in conventional small business lending activity.

    Dated: March 14, 2018. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05787 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; Product Identifier 2017-NM-169-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; Product Identifier 2017-NM-169-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0223R1, dated December 15, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance requirements (CMR) for ATR aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the ATR72-101/-201/-102/-202/-211/-212/-212A Time Limits (TL) document. These instructions have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    Consequently, ATR published Revision 15 of the ATR72-101/-201/-102/-202/-211/-212/-212A TL document, which contains new and/or more restrictive CMRs and airworthiness limitation tasks.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ATR72-101/-201/-102/-202/-211/-212/-212A TL document Revision 15, hereafter referred to as `the TLD' in this [EASA] AD.

    This [EASA] AD, in conjunction with two other [EASA] ADs related to ATR42-200/-300/-320 (EASA AD 2017-0221) and ATR42-400/-500 (EASA AD 2017-0222) aeroplanes, retains the requirements of EASA AD 2009-0241 and EASA AD 2012-0193. Once all these three ADs are effective, EASA will cancel EASA AD 2009-0242 and EASA AD 2012-0193.

    This [EASA] AD is revised to provide the correct issue date (02 May 2017) of the TLD. The original [EASA] AD inadvertently referenced the EASA approval date for that document.

    This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0166.

    Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

    ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017. The service information describes preventive maintenance requirements and includes updated limitations, tasks, thresholds and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

    Similar to the MCAI, this proposed AD would not supersede AD 2000-23-26, Amendment 39-11999 (65 FR 70775, November 28, 2000) (“AD 2000-23-26”), or AD 2008-04-19 R1, Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713, November 3, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-19 R1”). Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations that are new or more restrictive than those required by AD 2000-23-26 and AD 2008-04-19 R1. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all the requirements of AD 2000-23-26 and AD 2008-04-19 R1.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost 1 Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Maintenance or inspection program revision 90 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,650 None $7,650 $198,900 1 In the past, we have used 1 work-hour for revisions of the maintenance or inspection program. We have determined that incorporating the entire airworthiness limitation document specified in this proposed AD would take significantly longer than 1 work-hour.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; Product Identifier 2017-NM-169-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 7, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2000-23-26, Amendment 39-11999 (65 FR 70775) (“AD 2000-23-26”), and AD 2008-04-19 R1, Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713) (“AD 2008-04-19 R1”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before September 29, 2017.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the limitations and tasks at the applicable thresholds and intervals specified in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), of the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in the ALS of the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017, is at the applicable time specified in the ALS, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except for the tasks identified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (h) Initial Compliance Times for Certain Tasks

    For accomplishing certification maintenance requirement (CMR) tasks identified in table 1 and table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, the initial compliance time is at the applicable time specified in the ALS of the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017, or at the applicable compliance time in table 1 or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    EP22MR18.000 EP22MR18.001 (i) No Alternative Actions, and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), or intervals, may be used unless the actions and/or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2000-23-26 and AD 2008-04-19 R1.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0223R1, dated December 15, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0166.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 7, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05099 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1188; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-23] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Wrightstown, PA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in Wrightstown, NJ, by updating the name of McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst). This action also proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in Wrightstown, NJ, by updating the name and geographic coordinates of Ocean County Airport. Also, an editorial change would be made where necessary removing the city from the airport name in the airspace designation. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of Lakehurst (Navy) TACAN and Colts Neck VOR/DME.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-1188; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-23, 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 on line 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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 in Wrightstown, NJ to support IFR operations in the area.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on 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-2017-1188 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-23) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1188; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-23.” 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 document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. 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 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 office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface by updating the names of McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), (formerly McGuire AFB (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), and Ocean County Airport, (formerly Robert J. Miller Airpark), Wrightstown, NJ. These changes would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations in the area. In addition, this action would update the geographic coordinates of Ocean County Airport, Lakehurst (Navy) TACAN, and Colts Neck VOR/DME. These changes would bring current the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Finally, for Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, an editorial change would be made removing the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation to comply with FAA Order 7499.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 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 proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 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, will 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.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration 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. AEA NJ D Wrightstown, NJ [Amended] McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), NJ (Lat. 40°00′56″ N, long. 74°35′30″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst).

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA NJ E4 Wrightstown, NJ [Amended] McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), NJ (Lat. 40°00′56″ N, long. 74°35′30″ W) McGuire VORTAC (Lat. 40°00′34″ N, long. 74°35′47″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles each side of the McGuire VORTAC 350° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius of McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), to 6.1 miles north of the VORTAC and within 1.8 miles each side of the McGuire VORTAC 051° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 6.1 miles northeast of the VORTAC and within 1.8 miles each side of the McGuire VORTAC 180° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 5.2 miles south of the VORTAC, and within 1.8 miles each side of the McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), ILS localizer southwest course extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest of the localizer.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA NJ E5 Wrightstown, NJ [Amended] Lakewood Airport, NJ (Lat. 40°04′00″ N, long. 74°10′40″ W) McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), NJ (Lat. 40°00′56″ N, long. 74°35′30″ W) Trenton-Robbinsville Airport, NJ (Lat. 40°12′50″ N, long. 74°36′06″ W) Monmouth Executive Airport, NJ (Lat. 40°11′12″ N, long. 74°07′28″ W) Ocean County Airport, NJ (Lat. 39°55′34″ N, long. 74°17′44″ W) Lakehurst (Navy) TACAN (Lat. 40°02′13″ N, long. 74°21′11″ W) Colts Neck VOR/DME (Lat. 40°18′42″ N, long. 74°09′35″ W) Coyle VORTAC (Lat. 39°49′02″ N, long. 74°25′54″ W) Robbinsville VORTAC (Lat. 40°12′09″ N, long. 74°29′42″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Lakewood Airport, and within a 10.5-mile radius of McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), and within an 11.3-mile radius of the Lakehurst (Navy) TACAN extending clockwise from the TACAN 310° radial to the 148° radial and within 4.4 miles each side of the Coyle VORTAC 031° radial extending from the VORTAC to 11.3 miles northeast, and within 2.6 miles southwest and 4.4 miles northeast of the Lakehurst (Navy) TACAN 148° radial extending from the TACAN to 12.2 miles southeast, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Trenton- Robbinsville Airport and within 5.7 miles north and 4 miles south of the Robbinsville VORTAC 278° and 098° radials extending from 4.8 miles west to 10 miles east of the VORTAC, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Monmouth Executive Airport and within 1.8 miles each side of the Colts Neck VOR/DME 167° radial extending from the Monmouth Executive Airport 6.7-mile radius to the VOR/DME and within 4 miles each side of the 312° bearing from Monmouth Executive airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius of the airport to 9 miles northwest of the airport and within a 6.5-mile radius of Ocean County Airport and within 1.3 miles each side of the Coyle VORTAC 044° radial extending from the 6.5-mile radius to the VORTAC, excluding the portions that coincide with the Atlantic City, NJ, Princeton, NJ. Old Bridge NJ, Philadelphia, PA, Class E airspace areas.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 14, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05708 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Parts 538 and 560 Effectiveness of Licensing Procedures for Exportation of Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Sudan and Iran; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is soliciting comments on the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the exportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. Pursuant to section 906(c) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, OFAC is required to submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation of licensing procedures for such exports.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: Attn: Request for Comments (TSRA) (202) 622-0447.

    Mail: Attn: Request for Comments (TSRA), Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Freedman's Bank Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information about these licensing procedures should be directed to Davin Blackborow, Assistant Director, Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Freedman's Bank Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, telephone: (202) 622-2480. Additional information about these licensing procedures is also available at www.treasury.gov/tsra.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The current procedures used by OFAC pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of Pub. L. 106-387, 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) (the “Act”) for authorizing the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Iran are set forth in 31 CFR 560.530 through 560.533. Effective October 12, 2017, sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13067 of November 3, 1997 and all of E.O. 13412 of October 13, 2006 were revoked, pursuant to E.O. 13761 of January 13, 2017, as amended by E.O. 13804 of July 11, 2017. As a result of the revocation of these sanctions provisions, effective October 12, 2017, U.S. persons are no longer prohibited from engaging in transactions that were previously prohibited under the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 538. However, pursuant to the Act, an OFAC license is still required for exports and reexports to the Government of Sudan or any other entity in Sudan of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices as a result of Sudan's inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. These exports and reexports are generally licensed by OFAC. Under the provisions of section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation, during the preceding two-year period, of the licensing procedures required by section 906 of the Act for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. This report is to include:

    (1) The number and types of licenses applied for;

    (2) The number and types of licenses approved;

    (3) The average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval;

    (4) The extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented; and

    (5) A description of comments received from interested parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures were effective, after holding a public 30-day comment period.

    This document solicits comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran for the time period of October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2016. Interested parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires written comments. All comments received on or before April 23, 2018 will be considered by OFAC in developing the report to the Congress. Consideration of comments received after the end of the comment period cannot be assured.

    All comments made will be a matter of public record. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the comments be treated confidentially because of their business proprietary nature or for any other reason; OFAC will not consider them and will return such comments when submitted by regular mail to the person submitting the comments.

    Copies of past biennial reports may be obtained from OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/lic-agmed-index.aspx). Written requests may be sent to: Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Freedman's Bank Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220, Attn: Assistant Director for Licensing.

    Note 1:

    On December 23, 2016, OFAC published amendments to the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560, to expand the scope of medical devices and agricultural commodities generally authorized for export or reexport to Iran pursuant to the Act. This amendment also included new or expanded authorizations related to training, replacement parts, software, and services for the operation, maintenance, and repair of medical devices, and items that are broken or connected to product recalls or other safety concerns. Accordingly, specific licenses are no longer required for these transactions.

    John E. Smith, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05638 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145; FRL-9975-55-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, Oklahoma AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma submitted by the State of Oklahoma designee with a letter dated February 14, 2017. The submittal covers updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as contained in annual SIP updates for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and incorporates the latest changes to the EPA regulations. The overall intended outcome of this action is to make the approved Oklahoma SIP consistent with current Federal and State requirements. This action is being taken in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act (the Act) March 22, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-6691, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Alan Shar (6MM-AA), (214) 665-6691, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Alan Shar.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

    I. Background

    On November 3, 2015 (80 FR 67647), the EPA finalized, among other things, its approval of revisions to Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252 Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Chapter 100 Air Pollution Control (OAC:252:100), Subchapter 17 Incinerators, Subchapter 25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    The submittal dated February 14, 2017 (February 14, 2017 Submittal, or Submittal) which is the subject of this proposed action includes revisions to Subchapters 2 Incorporation by Reference, 5 Registration, Emission Inventory and Annual Operating Fees, 13 Open Burning, 17 Incinerators, 25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, 31 Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Appendix Q Incorporation by Reference of OAC:252:100. The Submittal covers the annual updates for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

    The criteria used to evaluate these SIP revisions are found primarily in section 110 of the Act. Section 110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to the EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing and also requires that the EPA not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in conjunction with this action for more information.

    II. Evaluation

    Subchapters 2, 5, and Appendix Q of the Submittal are air permit-related provisions of the Oklahoma SIP, and we are not acting upon these provisions in this rulemaking action. The EPA plans to act on these provisions separately in a future rulemaking action.

    In this action, we are proposing to approve revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 13, 17, 25, 31, Appendix E, and Appendix F, as contained in the Submittal. Appendices E and F adopt primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), respectively.

    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 13 imposes requirements for controlling open burning of refuse and other combustible materials. It defines “air curtain incinerator” or “air curtain destructor” as an incineration unit that operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open, integrated combustion chamber (fire box) or open pit or trench (trench burner) in which combustion occurs.

    The Subchapter 13 revisions limit allowed open burning when an Ozone or PM Watch has been declared for the day of the burn in an area. This provision is intended to assist with attaining and maintaining the Ozone and PM NAAQS. Section OAC 252:100-13-8 concerns the use of air curtain incinerators and prohibits the owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator from accepting to burn any material owned by other persons and transporting any material to the property where the air curtain incinerator is located unless the material is 100 percent wood waste, 100 percent clean lumber, or 100 percent mixture of wood waste and clean lumber. This provision makes the open burning activities more stringent and assists with compliance determinations. Revisions to OAC 252:100-13-8 also mandate compliance with applicable federal incineration requirements of 40 CFR part 60. See the TSD prepared in conjunction with this rulemaking action for more information.

    Since the record indicates that the submitted revisions to Subchapter 13 make applicability determinations clearer and improves compliance, we find that the Oklahoma SIP has not been relaxed and that the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act have been satisfied. See the TSD in the docket for this action. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 13 into the Oklahoma SIP.

    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 17 specifies design and operating requirements and establishes emission limitations for incinerators and municipal waste combustors. Submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 3 General Purpose Incinerators and Part 9 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units adjust enforceable requirements and compliance dates consistent with revisions to federal requirements dated February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9112). More specifically, the submitted revisions incorporate changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, Model Rule, Sections 60.2575 through 60.2875, including Tables 1 through 9. The State has adopted federal requirements for incinerators through an Incorporation By Reference (IBR) mechanism. See 64 FR 57392, and 70 FR 73595. The proposed revisions will render Subchapter 17 consistent with federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 17 into the Oklahoma SIP.

    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 25 concerns visible emissions and particulates and its purpose is to control visible emissions and particulate matter from the operation of specified air contaminant sources. More specifically, submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-25-5 require owners or operators of listed stationary sources install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all monitoring equipment for continuously monitoring opacity; it also requires compliance with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P. The proposed revisions will render Subchapter 25 consistent with federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 25 into Oklahoma SIP.

    ODEQ revised OAC 252:100, Subchapter 31 in 2002, 2003 (twice), 2012, and 2013. As a part of our review of the February 14, 2017 Submittal, each one of these five revisions has been evaluated in the TSD associated with this action.

    In particular, Subchapter 252:100:31 concerns control of emission of sulfur compounds and its purpose is control emissions of sulfur compounds from stationary sources. Revisions to 252:100:31-25(3) state that required SO2 emissions monitoring systems must comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P. As a result, the proposed revisions will be consistent with federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. In addition, by replacing State's outdated 24-hour and annual SO2 standards with the more stringent up-to-date short term federal 2010 1-Hour SO2 standard (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), Subchapter 31 will provide for even better protection of public health and environment and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 31 into the Oklahoma SIP.

    OAC 252:100, Appendix E concerns the primary NAAQS set forth to provide public health protection, including protecting the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. The submitted revision to Appendix E adopts the primary 2015 8-Hour ozone NAAQS and is consistent with 40 CFR 50.19, making the SIP more stringent. Also, see https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to OAC 252:100, Appendix E into the Oklahoma SIP. See the TSD for more information.

    OAC 252:100, Appendix F concerns the secondary NAAQS set forth to provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The submitted revision to Appendix F concerns the secondary 2015 8-Hour ozone NAAQS and is consistent with 40 CFR 50.19, making the SIP more stringent. Also, see https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to OAC 252:100, Appendix F into the Oklahoma SIP.

    III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 13, 17, 25, 31, Appendix E, and Appendix F, as submitted to us by a letter dated February 14, 2017 (Submittal). The Submittal covers Oklahoma's updates for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with Section 110 of the Act.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Oklahoma's regulations, as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Order 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 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05766 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578; FRL-9975-87-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Warren, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Warren Area” or “Area”). The Warren Area is comprised of a portion of Warren County (Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) in Pennsylvania surrounding the United Refining Company (hereafter referred to as “United Refining”). The SIP submission is an attainment plan which includes the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, contingency measures, and a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program for the Warren Area. As part of approving the attainment plan, EPA is also proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP new SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for United Refining. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan and concludes that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the plan meets all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Warren Area III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Warren Area A. Pollutants Addressed B. Emissions Inventory Requirements C. Air Quality Modeling D. RACM/RACT E. RFP Plan F. Contingency Measures G. New Source Review IV. EPA's Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour 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), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject to certain conditions.1 EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there were sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.2

    1 EPA's June 22, 2010, final action revoked the two 1971 primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30 ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520. However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained. Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).

    2 EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2, 2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 13-cv-03953-SI (2015).

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Warren Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source United Refining and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 42-123-0004). The October 4, 2013 final designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA section 172(b).

    For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017, to Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania's having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggers a requirement that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that time, the state has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply if EPA makes final the approval action proposed here by April 18, 2018.

    Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the statutory requirements for SO2 attainment plans.3 In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)).

    3See “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.

    II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Warren Area

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy for the primary SO2 source within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy for the primary SO2 source (United Refining), which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018, attainment date; requirements for RFP toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures; the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request that emission limitations and compliance parameters for United Refining be incorporated into the SIP.

    III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Warren Area

    Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment demonstration for an SO2 nonattainment area must include a showing that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reductions analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. EPA is proposing to conclude that the attainment plan submitted by Pennsylvania meets all applicable requirements of the CAA, and EPA is proposing to approve the plan submitted by Pennsylvania to ensure ongoing attainment in the Warren Area.

    A. Pollutants Addressed

    Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the area within the portion of Warren County (Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) that is designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider for the SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant that arises from direct emissions, and therefore concentrations are highest relatively close to the sources and much lower at greater distances due to dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration patterns resemble those of other directly emitted pollutants like lead, and differ from those of photochemically-formed (secondary) pollutants such as ozone. Pennsylvania's attainment plan appropriately considered SO2 emissions for the Indiana Area.

    B. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition, inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides that the emissions inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.4

    4 The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover overarching federal reporting requirements for the states to submit emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory System. EPA uses these submittals, along with other data sources, to build the National Emissions Inventory.

    For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a “comprehensive, accurate and current” inventory can be represented by a year that contributed to the three-year design value used for the original nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance notes that the base year inventory should include all sources of SO2 in the nonattainment area as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011 as the base year. Actual emissions from all the sources of SO2 in the Warren Area were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions inventory requirement. The primary SO2-emitting point source located within the Warren Area is United Refining, a petroleum refinery. United Refining consists of 29 main SO2 emitters, which include boilers, heaters, reboilers, compressors, and flares. More information on the emissions inventory for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, submittal as well as EPA's emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and which provides EPA's analysis of the emissions inventory.

    Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tons per year (tpy), in the Warren Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source category. The point source category includes all sources within the nonattainment area.

    Table 1—2011 Base Year SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Warren Area Emission source category SO2
  • Emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Point 993.095 Area 85.852 Non-road 0.337 On-road 1.380 Total 1,080.664

    EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Warren Area and has made the determination that this inventory was developed in a manner consistent with EPA's guidance. Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Warren Area.

    The attainment demonstration also provides for a projected attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of SO2 which are determined to impact the nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain the NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory for all known sources included in the 2011 base year inventory. The projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 2. Pennsylvania's submittal asserts that the SO2 emissions are expected to decrease by approximately 436 tons, or 40%, by 2018 from the 2011 base year. More information on the projected emissions for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, submittal, and EPA's analysis of the emissions inventories can be found in EPA's emissions inventory TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. EPA proposes to approve the 2011 base year inventory and the 2018 projected inventory as they meet CAA requirements.

    Table 2—2018 Projected SO2 Emission Inventory for the Warren Area Emission source category SO2
  • Emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Point 511.199 Area 132.48 Non-road 0.170 On-road 0.530 Total 644.379
    C. Air Quality Modeling

    The SO2 attainment demonstration provides an air quality dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate that control strategies chosen to reduce SO2 source emissions will bring the Area into attainment by the statutory attainment date of October 4, 2018. The modeling analysis, following recommendations outlined in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), is used for the attainment demonstration to assess the control strategy for a nonattainment area and establish emission limits that will provide for attainment. The analysis requires five years of meteorological data to simulate the dispersion of pollutant plumes from multiple point, area, or volume sources across the averaging times of interest. The modeling demonstration typically also relies on maximum allowable emissions from sources in the nonattainment area. Though the actual emissions are likely to be below the allowable emissions, sources have the ability to run at higher production rates or optimize controls such that emissions approach the allowable emissions limits. A modeling analysis that provides for attainment under all scenarios of operation for each source must therefore consider the worst case scenario of both the meteorology (e.g. predominant wind directions, stagnation, etc.) and the maximum allowable emissions.

    PADEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, and was prepared using EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD). A more detailed discussion of PADEP's modeling analysis for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal, and EPA's analysis of the modeling is discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578.

    EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to support the attainment demonstration for the Warren Area and has determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements, Appendix W, and EPA's guidance for SO2 attainment demonstration modeling. The modeling properly characterized source limits, local meteorological data, background concentrations, and provided an adequate model receptor grid to capture maximum modeled concentrations. Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2 NAAQS, the final modeled design value for the Warren Area is less than 75 ppb.5 Therefore, EPA is proposing to determine that the analysis demonstrates that the source limits used in the modeling demonstration comply with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the modeling is discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. EPA proposes to conclude that the modeling provided in the attainment plan shows that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date.

    5 The SO2 NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but AERMOD gives results in µg/m3. The conversion factor for SO2 (at the standard conditions applied in the ambient SO2 reference method) is 1 ppb = approximately 2.619 µg/m3. See Pennsylvania's SO2 Round 3 Designations proposed TSD at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/35_pa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.

    D. RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (i.e., RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state determines to be both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable “for existing sources in the area.”

    Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal discusses federal and state measures that will provide emission reductions leading to attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. With regards to state rules, Pennsylvania cites to its low sulfur fuel rules, which were SIP-approved on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39330). Pennsylvania's low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to refineries, pipelines, terminals, retail outlet fuel storage facilities, commercial and industrial facilities, and facilities with unit burning regulated fuel oil to produce electricity and for domestic home heaters. These low sulfur fuel oil rules reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion units, thereby reducing SO2 emissions and the formation of sulfates that cause decreased visibility. In terms of federal measures, Pennsylvania explains that 19 sources at United Refining are required to comply with the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), as well as four sources that are required to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refineries (the Refinery MACT 2). EPA notes that although Pennsylvania incorporates by reference the NESHAP and MACT, they are not in the Pennsylvania SIP.

    Pennsylvania's submittal discusses that enforceable emission changes have been in place at United Refining since 2015 that reduce the SO2 emissions from the facility. The facility switched from high sulfur (2.8% sulfur) fuel oil to a lower sulfur fuel oil (0.5% sulfur) in 11 combustion units and heaters. Also, in July 2015, United Refining increased the amount of the flue gas desulfurization additive (De-Sox) used for one of the emitting source's (Source ID 101A) catalyst, which prevents the formation of SO2 during the catalyst regeneration process.

    Based on the modeling analysis discussed in section IV.C. Air Quality Modeling, in order to ensure that the Warren Area demonstrates attainment with the SO2 NAAQS, emission limits established in a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) (see Appendix B of the September 29, 2017 submittal) between PADEP and United Refining, will be used to control SO2 emissions from United Refining. The collective emission limits and related compliance parameters have been proposed for incorporation into the SIP to make these changes federally enforceable. The compliance parameters include United Refining burning certain fuel types; monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting; conducting emission testing; using De-Sox additive where appropriate; and using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). PADEP asserts that this proposed control strategy lowers the modeled SO2 impacts from United Refining and is sufficient for the Warren Area to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The new emission limits for each of the SO2-emitting sources at United Refining are listed in Table 3. PADEP affirms that the implementation of new emission limits and corresponding compliance parameters serve as RACM/RACT at United Refining, and will enable the Warren Area to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS.

    Table 3—United Refining New Emission Limits Source ID Source description SO2 Emission limit
  • (pounds per hour or lbs/hr)
  • 031, 032, 033 Boiler 1, 2, and 3 27.42 034 Boiler 4 7.21 036 Boiler 5B 0.24 042 FCC Heater 1.10 044 DHT Heater 1 0.10 049 East Reformer Heater 22.42 050 Crude Heater—North 27.78 050A Crude Heater—South 27.78 051 Pretreater Heater 11.00 052 West Reformer Heater 2.20 053 Sat Gas Plant Reboiler 0.40 054 Vacuum Process Heater 0.80 055 DHT Heater 2 6.36 056 Prefactionator Reboiler 2 5.37 057 Volcanic Heater (T-241) 0.30 101A FCC Unit 131.50 102 Blowdown System—Combo Flare 0.40 102 Blowdown System—FCC Flare 0.10 105 Middle FCC KVG Compressor 0.14 106 East FCC KVG Compressor 0.14 107 Sat Gas KVG Compressor 0.10 108 Claus Sulfur Plant 2 12.00 108A Sulfur Plant 2 Hot Oil Heater 0.10 211 Loading Rack Bottom Loading 0.81 037 Boiler 6 4.60 1010 SMR Hydrogen Plant 0.099 C1010 Elevated Process Flare 0.47

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the proposed SO2 control strategy at United Refining constitutes RACM/RACT for that source in the Warren Area based on the modeling analysis previously described. The Area is projected to begin showing attaining monitoring values for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Furthermore, PADEP requests that the emission limits listed in Table 3 and corresponding compliance parameters found in the unredacted portions of the COA for United Refining will become permanent and enforceable SIP measures to meet the requirements of the CAA. EPA, therefore, proposes to approve Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, SIP submittal as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements of section 172(c) of the CAA.

    E. RFP Plan

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan include a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (i.e., RFP) for meeting air quality standards will be achieved through generally linear incremental improvement in air quality. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part (part D) or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.” As stated originally in the 1994 SO2 Guidelines Document 6 and repeated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA continues to believe that this definition is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted from numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between particular sources and ambient air quality are not directly quantified. In such cases, emissions reductions may be required from various types and locations of sources. The relationship between SO2 and sources is much more defined, and usually there is a single step between pre-control nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, EPA interpreted RFP for SO2 as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule in both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. The control measures for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS included in Pennsylvania's submittal have been modeled to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The permits and the adoption of specific emission limits and compliance parameters require these control measures and resulting emission reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as practicable. As a result, based on air quality modeling reviewed by EPA, this is projected to yield a sufficient reduction in SO2 emissions from United Refining resulting in modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for the Warren Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's SO2 attainment plan fulfills the RFP requirements for the Warren Area. EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that the Area will not meet the October 4, 2018, attainment date. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan with respect to the RFP requirements.

    6 SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

    F. Contingency Measures

    In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However, SO2 presents special considerations. As stated in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520) and in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA concluded that because of the quantifiable relationship between SO2 sources and control measures, it is appropriate that state agencies develop a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

    The United Refining COA (see Appendix B of the September 29, 2017 submittal) contains the following measures that are designed to keep the Warren Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the SO2 NAAQS: (1) If the SO2 emissions from the FCC Unit (Source ID 101A) exceeds the validated lbs/hr permitted emission limit listed in Table 3, the facility will perform an audit of the unit's SO2 control additive system, which will include injection of the proper amount of De-SOx additive, and within 45 days of the exceedance, submit a report to PADEP; (2) If the Warren Overlook SO2 ambient air quality monitor (ID 42-123-0005) located within the nonattainment area measures a third daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration for any hour greater than 75 parts per billion (ppb) within a calendar year (if this occurs on two days back-to-back, it will be counted as one; if there are three days in a row, it will be counted as two), after verification and notification by PADEP, within 90 calendar days, United Refining must submit an investigative report to PADEP. If the report concludes that SO2 emissions from one or more SO2-emitting sources at the facility caused an exceedance, the report must include proposed changes in the facility operations that would be needed in order to avoid a violation of the SO2 NAAQS; (3) If PADEP identifies a daily maximum SO2 concentration exceeding 75 ppb at a PADEP-operated SO2 ambient air quality monitor in the Warren Area, within five days, PADEP will contact United Refining to trigger the implementation of the daily exceedance report contingency measure described above in (2); (4) Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) authorizes PADEP to take any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement of APCA and the rules and regulations promulgated under APCA. Such actions include the issuance of orders and the assessment of civil penalties.

    EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for aggressive follow-up including enforcement measures within PADEP's authority as necessary. Therefore, EPA proposes that the contingency measures submitted by Pennsylvania follow the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.

    G. New Source Review7

    7 The CAA new source review (NSR) program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment NSR (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in undesignated areas and in areas that meet the NAAQS— “attainment areas”—as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS—designated “unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR program addresses construction or modification activities that do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. Section 173 of the CAA lays out the NNSR program for preconstruction review of new major sources or major modifications to existing sources, as required by CAA section 172(c)(5). The programmatic elements for NNSR include, among other things, compliance with the lowest achievable emissions rate and the requirement to obtain emissions offsets.

    Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a fully implemented nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program for criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These rules provide for appropriate new source review as required by CAA sections 175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) for this Area.

    IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision for the Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017 for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Warren Area, and is proposing that the Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters established for the SO2 source impacting the Warren Area.

    EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Warren County meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and comports with EPA's recommendations discussed in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Warren Area as submitted on September 29, 2017. EPA's analysis for this proposed action is discussed in Section IV of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Final approval of this SIP submittal will remove EPA's duty to promulgate and implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the portions of the Consent Order and Agreement entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on September 29, 2017, that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. 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 proposed 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 (Public Law 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, this proposed rule, concerning the SO2 attainment plan for the Warren nonattainment area in Pennsylvania, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 13, 2018. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05876 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0843; FRL-9975-28-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Texas for the 2012 primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal addresses how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). This i-SIP ensures that the Texas SIP is adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0843, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-6454, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-6454, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with her or Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” mean EPA.

    I. Background

    Below is a short discussion of the background of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS addressed in this notice. For more information, please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) and EPA website http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.

    EPA has regulated PM since 1971, when we published the first NAAQS for PM (36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971). Most recently, by notice dated January 15, 2013, following a periodic review of the NAAQS for PM2.5, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 µg/m3 and retained the secondary PM2.5 annual standard of 15 µg/m3 as well as the 24-hour PM2.5 primary and secondary standards of 35 µg/m3 (78 FR 3086, December 14, 2012). The primary NAAQS is designed to protect human health, and the secondary NAAQS is designed to protect the public welfare.

    Each state must submit an i-SIP within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP must meet. On September 13, 2013, the EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for NAAQS.1 On December 1, 2015, the Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted an i-SIP revision to address the revised NAAQS for 2012 PM2.5.2

    1 “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.

    2 Additional information, including the history of the priority pollutants, their levels forms and determination of compliance; EPA approach for reviewing i-SIP submittal and EPA's evaluation; the statute and regulatory citations in the Texas SIP specific to the review the specific i-SIP applicable CAA and EPA regulatory citations, Federal Register Notice citations for the Texas SIP approvals; Texas minor New Source Review program and EPA approval activities, and Texas' Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program can be found in the TSD.

    II. EPA's Evaluation of Texas' NAAQS Infrastructure Submission

    Below is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the Texas i-SIP for each applicable element of 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) 3 that we are proposing to approve. At this time, we are not proposing action on the visibility protection sub-element under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Texas provided a demonstration of how the existing Texas SIP meets the requirements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, on December 1, 2015.

    3 A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the TSD for this action. The TSD can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0465).

    (A). Emission limits and other control measures: The SIP must include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance and other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS.4

    4 The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172, not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section 110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2012 PM2.5. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

    The Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) provides the TCEQ with broad legal authority. It may adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to regulated entities; emission standards and limitations and any other measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of national standards; and, enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief. This authority has been employed in the past to adopt and submit multiple revisions to the Texas SIP. The approved SIP for Texas is documented at 40 CFR part 52.2270. TCEQ's air quality rules and standards are codified at Title 30, Part 1 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). Numerous parts of the regulations codified into 30 TAC necessary for implementing and enforcing the NAAQS have been adopted into the SIP.

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: The SIP must provide for establishment and implementation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and analysis of ambient air quality data, and providing the data to EPA upon request.

    The TCAA provides the authority allowing the TCEQ to collect air monitoring data, quality-assure the results, and report the data. TCEQ maintains and operates a monitoring network to measure levels of PM2.5, as well as other pollutants, in accordance with EPA regulations specifying siting and monitoring requirements. All monitoring data is measured using EPA approved methods and subject to the EPA quality assurance requirements. TCEQ submits all required data to us, following the EPA regulations. The Texas statewide monitoring network was approved into the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842, 10895), was revised on March 7, 1978 (43 FR 9275), and it undergoes annual review by EPA.5 In addition, TCEQ conducts a recurrent assessment of its monitoring network every five years, as required by EPA rules. The most recent of these 5-year monitoring network assessments was conducted by TCEQ and approved by us in July of 2015.6 The TCEQ website provides the monitor locations and posts past and current concentrations of criteria pollutants measured by the State's network of monitors.7

    5 A copy of the 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and our approval letter are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    6 A copy of TCEQ's 2015 5-year ambient monitoring network assessment and our response letter are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    7 See http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/monops/sites/mon_sites.html and http://www17.tceq.texas.gov/tamis/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome.

    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures: The SIP must include the following three elements: (1) A program providing for enforcement of the measures in paragraph (A) above; (2) a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).8

    8 We discuss these requirements in further detail in the TSD.

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. As noted in (A), the TCAA provides authority for the TCEQ, its Chairman, and its Executive Director to enforce the requirements of the TCAA, and any regulations, permits, or final compliance orders. These statutes also provide the TCEQ, its Chairman, and its Executive Director with general enforcement powers. Among other things, they can file lawsuits to compel compliance with the statutes and regulations; commence civil actions; issue field citations; conduct investigations of regulated entities; collect criminal and civil penalties; develop and enforce rules and standards related to protection of air quality; issue compliance orders; pursue criminal prosecutions; investigate, enter into remediation agreements; and issue emergency cease and desist orders. The TCAA also provides additional enforcement authorities and funding mechanisms.

    (2) Minor New Source Review (NSR). The SIP is required to include measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary sources to protect the NAAQS. The Texas minor NSR permitting requirements are approved as part of the SIP.9

    9 EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the existing Texas minor NSR program to the extent that it may be inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element C, program for enforcement of control measures, (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079). The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs.

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. The Texas PSD portion of the SIP covers all NSR regulated pollutants as well as the requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and has been approved by EPA (79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014).10

    10 We discuss this requirement further in the TSD.

    (D) Interstate and international transport: Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), there are four sub-elements the SIP must include relating to interstate transport. The first two of the four sub-elements are provided in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and require that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other states which will (1) contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS, or (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. The third and fourth sub-elements are outlined in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and require that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other states which will (1) interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration or (2) interfere with measures to protect visibility. We are not taking action on the visibility protection sub-element at this time.

    Texas's SIP revision submittal evaluated the two sub-elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by considering the following factors:

    • An analysis of the most recent annual PM2.5 design values to determine which areas near Texas violate, or are close to violating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS;

    • An analysis of the PM2.5 annual design value trends in Texas to determine if the PM2.5 concentrations in Texas are increasing or decreasing; and,

    • An investigation of PM2.5 annual design value trends in other states to determine whether PM2.5 concentrations in those areas are increasing or decreasing.

    This evaluation concluded that Texas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.

    On March 17, 2016 EPA issued a memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (Memorandum).11 We used the information in the Memorandum and additional information for our evaluation and came to the same conclusion as the State. In our evaluation, as discussed in greater detail in the TSD, we identified the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e., monitors), and then evaluated them to determine if Texas's emissions could potentially contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2021, the attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Specifically, the analysis identified (i) 17 potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in California, but based on our evaluation of the local emissions, wind speed and direction, topographical and meteorological conditions and seasonal variations recorded at the monitors, we propose to conclude that Texas's emissions do not significantly impact those receptors; (ii) one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, but based on an evaluation similar to that of the California monitors, we propose to conclude that Texas's emissions do not significantly impact that receptor; (iii) one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, but we expect the air quality affecting it to improve to the point where there will not be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor by 2021 and, in any event, modeling from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates that Texas emissions are not impacting it; (iv) the receptors in four counties in Florida have data gaps, and as such, we initially treat those counties as potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors, but it is unlikely that they will in fact be nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021 and in any event, CSAPR modeling indicates that Texas emissions do not impact them; and (v) all receptors in Illinois have data gaps, and same as in (iv) we initially treat them as potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors, but it is unlikely that they will in fact nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021 because the most recent air quality data (from 2015 and 2016) indicates that all monitors in Illinois are likely attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) sub-elements that Texas emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for any other state.

    11 “Information on the Interstate Transport Good Neighbor Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.

    With regard to the PSD sub-element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Texas stated, as noted in element C above, that it has a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD program. As we have approved the Texas comprehensive PSD program (79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014), the third sub-element, that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other states which will interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration is met. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the portion of the State's i-SIP submission which addresses the PSD sub-element of interstate transport. As noted above, at this time we are not proposing action on the visibility protection sub-element of interstate transport.

    A more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revision meets the first three sub-elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the TSD.

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 (relating to interstate pollution abatement) and 115 (relating to international pollution abatement). As stated in its submittal, Texas meets the section 126 requirements as (1) it has a fully approved PSD SIP (79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014), which includes notification to neighboring air agencies of potential impacts from each new or modified major source and (2) no source or sources have been identified by the EPA as having any interstate impacts under section 126 in any pending action related to any air pollutant. Texas meets section 115 requirements as there are no findings by EPA that Texas air emissions affect other countries. Therefore, we propose to approve the submitted revision pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight: The SIP must provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the state responsible for implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) requirements relating to state boards; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion of the plan.

    Both elements (A) and (E) address the requirement that there is adequate authority to implement and enforce the SIP and that there are no legal impediments.

    The i-SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS describes the SIP regulations governing the various functions of personnel within the TCEQ, including the administrative, technical support, planning, enforcement, and permitting functions of the program.

    With respect to funding, the TCAA requires TCEQ to establish an emissions fee schedule for sources in order to fund the reasonable costs of administering various air pollution control programs and authorizes TCEQ to collect additional fees necessary to cover reasonable costs associated with processing of air permit applications. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement and enforce the SIP.

    As required by the CAA, the Texas statutes and the SIP stipulate that any board or body, which approves permits or enforcement orders, must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders or who appear before the board on issues related to the CAA or the TCAA. The members of the board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, are required to adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

    With respect to assurances that the State has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, the Texas statutes and the SIP designate the TCEQ as the primary air pollution control agency and TCEQ maintains authority to ensure implementation of any applicable plan portion.

    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: The SIP must provide for the establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such sources. The SIP shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and require that the state correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for public inspection at reasonable times.

    The TCAA authorizes the TCEQ to require persons engaged in operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions and to file reports containing information relating to the nature and amount of emissions. There also are SIP-approved state regulations pertaining to sampling and testing and requirements for reporting of emissions inventories. In addition, SIP-approved rules establish general requirements for maintaining records and reporting emissions.

    The TCEQ uses this information, in addition to information obtained from other sources, to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining compliance with SIP-approved regulations and additional EPA requirements. The SIP requires this information be made available to the public. Provisions concerning the handling of confidential data and proprietary business information are included in the SIP-approved regulations. These rules specifically exclude from confidential treatment any records concerning the nature and amount of emissions reported by sources.

    (G) Emergency authority: The SIP must provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment and to include contingency plans to implement such authorities as necessary.

    The TCAA provides TCEQ with authority to address environmental emergencies, and TCEQ has contingency plans to implement emergency episode provisions. Upon a finding that any owner/operator is unreasonably affecting the public health, safety or welfare, or the health of animal or plant life, or property, the TCAA and 30 TAC chapters 35 and 118 authorize TCEQ to, after a reasonable attempt to give notice, declare a state of emergency and issue without hearing an emergency special order directing the owner/operator to cease such pollution immediately. The TCEQ may issue emergency orders, or issue or suspend air permits as required by an air pollution emergency.

    (H) Future SIP revisions: States must have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.

    The TCAA authorizes the TCEQ to revise the Texas SIP, as necessary, to account for revisions of an existing NAAQS, establishment of a new NAAQS, to attain and maintain a NAAQS, to abate air pollution, to adopt more effective methods of attaining a NAAQS, and to respond to EPA SIP calls concerning NAAQS adoption or implementation.

    (I) Nonattainment areas: The CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.

    However, as noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on any part D attainment plan SIP submission through a separate rulemaking process governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.

    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three CAA requirements: (1) Section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public notification of NAAQS exceedances and related issues; and (3) prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and (4) visibility protection.

    (1) Interagency consultation: As required by the TCAA, there must be a public hearing before the adoption of any regulations or emission control requirements, and all interested persons are given a reasonable opportunity to review the action that is being proposed and to submit data or arguments, either orally or in writing, and to examine the testimony of witnesses from the hearing. In addition, the TCAA provides the TCEQ the power and duty to establish cooperative agreements with local authorities, and consult with other states, the federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control. Furthermore, the Texas PSD SIP rules mandate that the TCEQ shall provide for public participation and notification regarding permitting applications to any other state or local air pollution control agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the source will be located, tribal authorities, and Federal Land Manager (FLMs) whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification. Additionally, the State's PSD SIP rules require the TCEQ to consult with FLMs regarding permit applications for sources with the potential to impact Class I Federal Areas. The SIP also includes a commitment to consult continually with the FLMs on the review and implementation of the visibility program. The State recognizes the expertise of the FLMs in monitoring and new source review applicability analyses for visibility, and has agreed to notify the FLMs of any advance notification or early consultation with a new or modifying source prior to the submission of a permit application. Likewise, the State's Transportation Conformity SIP rules provide for interagency consultation, resolution of conflicts, and public notification.

    (2) Public Notification: The i-SIP submission from Texas provide the SIP regulatory citations requiring the TCEQ to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded. Included in the SIP are the rules for TCEQ to advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. In addition, as discussed for infrastructure element B above, the TCEQ air monitoring website provides quality data for each of the monitoring stations in Texas; this data is provided instantaneously for certain pollutants, such as ozone. The website also provides information on the health effects of lead, ozone, particulate matter, and other criteria pollutants.

    (3) PSD and Visibility Protection: The PSD requirements for this element are the same as those addressed under element (C) above. The Texas SIP requirements relating to visibility protection are not affected when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements due to the revision of the NAAQS, and consequently there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to infrastructure element (J).

    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.

    The TCEQ has the power and duty, under TCAA to develop facts and investigate providing for the functions of environmental air quality assessment. Past modeling and emissions reductions measures have been submitted by the State and approved into the SIP. Additionally, TCEQ has the ability to perform modeling for primary and secondary NAAQS on a case by case permit basis consistent with their SIP-approved PSD rules and with EPA guidance.

    The TCAA authorizes and requires TCEQ to cooperate with the federal government and local authorities concerning matters of common interest in the field of air quality control, thereby allowing the agency to make such submissions to the EPA.

    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, to cover the cost of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.

    See the discussion for element (E) above for the description of the mandatory collection of permitting fees outlined in the SIP.

    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: The SIP must provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    See discussion for element (J) (1) and (2) above for a description of the SIP's public participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD SIP's public participation requirements. Additionally, the TCAA also requires initiation of cooperative action between local authorities and the TCEQ, between one local authority and another, or among any combination of local authorities and the TCEQ for control of air pollution in areas having related air pollution problems that overlap the boundaries of political subdivisions, and entering into agreements and compacts with adjoining states and Indian tribes, where appropriate. The transportation conformity component of the Texas SIP requires that interagency consultation and opportunity for public involvement be provided before making transportation conformity determinations and before adopting applicable SIP revisions on transportation-related issues.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the majority of the December 1, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission from Texas, which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Table below outlines the specific actions EPA is proposing to approve.

    Table 1—Proposed Action on Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittal for Various NAAQS Element 2012
  • PM2.5
  • (A): Emission limits and other control measures A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system A (C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures A (C)(ii):PSD program for major sources and major modifications A (C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications A (D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (requirements 1 and 2) A (D)(i)(II): PSD (requirement 3) A (D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (requirement 4) NA (D)(ii): Interstate and International Pollution Abatement A (E)(i): Adequate resources A (E)(ii): State boards A (E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies A (F): Stationary source monitoring system A (G): Emergency power A (H): Future SIP revisions A (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D + (J)(i): Consultation with government officials A (J)(ii): Public notification A (J)(iii): PSD A (J)(iv): Visibility protection + (K): Air quality modeling and data A (L): Permitting fees A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities A Key to Table 1: Proposed action on TX infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS. A—Approve. +—Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. NA EPA is taking no action on this infrastructure requirement.

    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submission and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in this submission or referenced in Texas' SIP, EPA believes that Texas has the infrastructure in place to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS are implemented in the state.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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).

    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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05767 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 84 [Docket No. CDC-2018-0003; NIOSH-309] RIN 0920-AA66 Clarification of Post-Approval Testing Standards for Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to modify current language found in Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations which addresses post-approval testing of closed-circuit escape respirators (CCERs). The revised language should clarify that post-approval testing of CCERs may exclude human subject testing and environmental conditioning, at the discretion of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS. The revision to the text in this paragraph will clarify the scope of post-approval testing conducted by NIOSH.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, MS-C34, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45226.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS) and docket number (CDC-2018-0003; NIOSH-309) or Regulation Identifier Number (0920-AA66) for this rulemaking. All relevant comments, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. For detailed instructions on submitting public comments, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Weiss, Office of the Director, NIOSH; 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS:C-48, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation

    Interested parties may participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, opinions, recommendations, and data. 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 do not wish to be disclosed. You may submit comments on any topic related to this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    II. Statutory Authority

    Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-596), the Organic Act of 1910 (Pub. L. 179), and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 91-173), NIOSH is authorized to approve respiratory equipment and to conduct scientific investigations or tests concerning the safety and health of miners and other workers.

    III. Background

    The provisions in 42 CFR 84.310 govern the procedures NIOSH follows in conducting post-approval testing of closed-circuit escape respirators (CCERs) sold and distributed to employees. The post-approval testing program, known as the long-term field evaluation (LTFE) program, is designed to ensure the CCERs' continued safety and viability as emergency life support after having been exposed to harsh environments such as those found in mining. According to the existing language in § 84.310(c), post-approval testing is conducted pursuant to the methods promulgated in §§ 84.303 through 84.305, which establish general testing conditions and requirements, including capacity and performance testing.

    In a rulemaking conducted in March 2012 to update the standards for the testing of CCERs,1 NIOSH did not specify that neither the human subject trials specified in §§ 84.303-84.305, nor the environmental conditioning specified in § 84.305, would be conducted on post-market respirators (devices sold and distributed to employees) except at NIOSH's discretion. A clarification about human subject testing was issued in a September 2016 policy statement.2

    1 77 FR 14168, March 8, 2012.

    2 See NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Document No. POL-NPPTL-2016-01, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/resources/certpgmspt/pdfs/LTFEpolicyFinalSigned-012617.pdf.

    NIOSH requires human subject testing only when new or modified devices are presented for approval evaluation. The human subject trials are included as a final check of functionality in the as-used (worn by a human being) mode of operation. The inclusion of human subject tests addresses the goal of ensuring that no aspect of a design found to be in compliance with the bench tests specified in 42 CFR part 84 is compromised by, or fails to adequately accommodate, the needs of the human/device interaction. Once established, there is no need to re-evaluate the apparatus with the aid of human subjects unless the design is changed.

    Bench testing, using a breathing and metabolic simulator, eliminates the potential for human subjects to suffer adverse effects from defective CCERs. A post-market unit that does not function in accordance with the NIOSH approval requirements after potential damage from exposure to the deployment environment could pose a health risk to a human test subject. Further, requiring human subject testing constrains the number of fielded units NIOSH is able to test, due to the logistical complexity and higher cost of hiring human subjects.3

    3 Historically, NIOSH employed both the human subject testing and the breathing and metabolic simulator testing to assess the results side-by-side, and to ground the simulator testing to the human subject results. NIOSH has determined that the simulator can reliably replicate human subject testing.

    Environmental treatments are not conducted on post-market devices, because the intent of the post-market evaluation is to assess the actual effects of the deployed environment on respirators used in the field. The environmental treatments specified in NIOSH regulations involve exposing respirators to realistically harsh conditions representative of industrial environments in order to assess that they are reasonably robust for their intended service. The treatments are conducted only during the evaluation of a new or modified respirator design submitted to NIOSH for approval.

    IV. Summary of Proposed Rule

    The proposed changes to 42 CFR 84.310(c) would reflect current NIOSH policy by clarifying that neither human subject testing nor environmental testing are required to be routinely conducted on respirators obtained by the LTFE program. The revision would allow NIOSH to conduct human subject testing or environmental treatments in the LTFE program only when NIOSH deems those tests to be necessary.

    The language in existing paragraph (d) would be unchanged, and moved into a new paragraph (c)(2). The remainder of the paragraphs in § 84.310 would be redesignated accordingly.

    V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    This proposed rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. The revision proposed in this notice would allow NIOSH the discretion to determine whether to conduct human subject tests or environmental treatments on fielded respirators chosen for post-approval testing. The current language requires NIOSH to conduct those tests.

    Because this proposed rule is a technical correction and would not affect the cost of the activities authorized by 42 CFR 84.310(c), HHS has not prepared an economic analysis. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking.

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

    Executive Order 13771 requires executive departments and agencies to eliminate at least two existing regulations for every new significant regulation that imposes costs. Because OMB has determined that this rulemaking is not significant, pursuant to E.O. 12866, and because it does not impose costs, OMB has determined that this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771. Thus it has not been reviewed by OMB.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. Because no substantive changes are being made to 42 CFR 84.310(c) as a result of this action, HHS certifies that this proposed rule has “no significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities” within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires an agency to invite public comment on, and to obtain OMB approval of, any regulation that requires 10 or more people to report information to the agency or to keep certain records. In accordance with section 3507(d) of the PRA, HHS has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act does apply to information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this rule. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements under OMB Control Number 0920-0109, Information Collection Provisions in 42 CFR part 84—Tests and Requirements for Certification and Approval of Respiratory Protective Devices (expiration date 11/30/2017). NIOSH is currently seeking approval for a renewal of the information collection; a 30-day notice was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2018 (83 FR 7188). The proposed amendments in this rulemaking would not impact the collection of data.

    E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), HHS will report the promulgation of this rule to Congress prior to its effective date.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector “other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.” For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased annual expenditures in excess of $100 million by State, local or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.

    H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    HHS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this proposed rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no environmental health and safety effect on children.

    J. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.

    K. Plain Writing Act of 2010

    Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the proposed rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 84

    Mine safety and health, Occupational safety and health, Personal protective equipment, Respirators.

    Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 42 CFR 84.310 as follows:

    PART 84—APPROVAL OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 84 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 3, 5, 7, 811, 842(h), 844.

    2. Amend § 84.310 by removing paragraph (d), redesignating paragraphs (e)-(g) as (d)-(f), and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 84.310 Post-approval testing.

    (c) NIOSH will conduct such testing pursuant to the methods specified in §§ 84.303 through 84.305, except as provided under paragraphs (a)(1) and(a) (2) of this section:.

    (1) Post-approval tests may exclude human subject testing and environmental conditioning at the discretion of NIOSH.

    (2) The numbers of units in an approved CCER to be tested under this section may exceed the numbers of units specified for testing in §§ 84.304 and 84.305.

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05775 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, and 180 [Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0001; Notice No. 2018-01] Request for Information on Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle Environment AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requests information on matters related to the development and potential use of automated technologies for surface modes (i.e., highway and rail) in hazardous materials transportation. In anticipation of the development, testing, and integration of Automated Driving Systems in surface transportation, PHMSA is issuing this request for information on the factors the Agency should consider to ensure continued safe transportation of hazardous materials without impeding emerging surface transportation technologies.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 7, 2018. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Docket Number PHMSA-2018-0001 via any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. Internet users may access comments received by DOT at: http://www.regulations.gov. Please note that comments received will be posted without change to: http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided.

    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the DOT solicits comments from the public. The DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Nickels, Senior Regulations Officer (PHH-10), U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone 202-366-0464, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Overview

    The transportation sector is undergoing a potentially revolutionary period, as tasks traditionally performed by humans only are increasingly being done, whether in testing or in actual integration, by automated technologies. Most prominently, “Automated Driving Systems” (ADS) have shown the capacity to drive and operate motor vehicles, including commercial motor vehicles, as safely and efficiently as humans, if not more so. Similar technological developments are also occurring in rail.

    DOT, including PHMSA, strongly encourages the safe development, testing, and integration of these automated technologies, including the potential for these technologies to be used in hazardous materials transportation. Although an exciting and important innovation in transportation history, the emergence of surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them may create unique and unforeseen challenges for hazardous materials transportation. The safe transportation of hazardous materials remains PHMSA's top priority, and as the development, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles into our transportation system continues, PHMSA must ensure the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) framework sufficiently takes into account these new technological innovations.

    The purpose of this request for information is to obtain public comment on how the development of automated technologies may impact the HMR, and on the information PHMSA should consider when determining how to best ensure the HMR adequately account for surface automated vehicles.1 In anticipation of the role surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them may play on transportation, the movement of freight, and commerce, PHMSA requests comments from the public and interested stakeholders—including entities engaged in the development, testing, and integration of these technologies—on the potential future incompatibilities between the hazardous materials transportation requirements in the HMR and a surface transportation system that incorporates automated vehicles.

    1 In this notice, PHMSA is not seeking comment on how advances in aviation or maritime technology could affect the transportation of hazardous materials, though the Agency is considering future notices on those issues.

    II. PHMSA's Safety Mission and Regulatory Objectives

    PHMSA is an operating administration within DOT established in 2004 by the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Pub. L. 108-426). PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials that are essential to our daily lives. To achieve this mission, PHMSA establishes national policy, sets and enforces standards, educates, and conducts research to prevent hazardous materials incidents—often collaborating closely with other Federal agencies, operating administrations, and transportation modes.

    Federal hazardous materials law authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.” 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated this authority to PHMSA in 49 CFR 1.97(b). The HMR are designed to achieve three primary goals: (1) Help ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely and securely during transportation; (2) provide effective communication to transportation workers and emergency responders of the hazards of the materials being transported; and (3) minimize the consequences of an accident or incident should one occur. The hazardous materials regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying safety or security hazards and reducing the probability and consequences of a hazardous material release.

    Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized into hazard classes and packing groups based on analysis of and experience with the risks they present during transportation. The HMR: (1) Specify appropriate packaging and handling requirements for hazardous materials based on this classification and require a shipper to communicate the material's hazards through the use of shipping papers, package marking and labeling, and vehicle placarding; (2) require shippers to provide emergency response information applicable to the specific hazard or hazards of the material being transported; and (3) mandate training requirements for persons who prepare hazardous materials for shipment or transport hazardous materials in commerce. The HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each mode of transportation.

    As such, PHMSA—in continued collaboration with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration—seeks information regarding the design, development, and potential use of automated transportation systems to safely transport hazardous materials by surface mode in compliance with the HMR, and to identify requirements within the HMR which may impede the integration of this technology.

    III. Special Permit Program Allows Regulatory Flexibility To Foster Innovation

    PHMSA safely incorporates technological innovation through its special permit (SP) program. SPs set forth alternative requirements—or a variance—to the requirements in the HMR in a manner that achieves an equivalent level of safety to that required under the regulations, or if a required safety level does not exist, that is consistent with the public interest. PHMSA's Approvals and Permits Division is responsible for the issuance of DOT SPs. Specifically, SPs are issued by PHMSA under 49 CFR part 107, subpart B.

    The HMR often provide performance-based standards and, as such, provide the regulated community with some flexibility in meeting safety requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be anticipated and covered under the regulations. The hazardous materials community is at the cutting edge of development of new materials, technologies, and innovative ways of moving hazardous materials. Innovation strengthens our economy, and new technologies and operational techniques may enhance safety. Thus, SPs provide a mechanism for testing and using new technologies, promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global competitiveness without compromising safety. SPs enable the hazardous materials industry to safely, quickly, and effectively integrate new products and technologies into production and the transportation stream.

    IV. Additional DOT Guidance

    PHMSA requests information related to the development and potential use of surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them in hazardous materials transportation by highway or rail. For additional background on ADS for motor vehicles, PHMSA notes that DOT and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released guidance in the Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, 2 on September 12, 2017. Further, NHTSA issued a notice [September 15, 2017; 82 FR 43321] making the public aware of the guidance and seeking comment. This voluntary guidance, among other things, describes the levels of “Automated Driving Systems” for on-road motor vehicles developed by SAE International (see SAE J3016, September 2016) and adopted by DOT.

    2 See https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf

    The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on “who does what, when.” Generally:

    • At SAE Level 0, the driver does everything.

    • At SAE Level 1, an automated system on the vehicle can sometimes assist the driver conduct some parts of the driving task.

    • At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can actually conduct some parts of the driving task, while the driver continues to monitor the driving environment and performs the rest of the driving task.

    • At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment in some instances, but the driver must be ready to take back control when the automated system requests.

    • At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the driver need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions.

    • At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a driver could perform them.

    V. Questions

    PHMSA requests comments on the implications of the development, testing, and integration of automated technologies for surface modes (i.e., highway and rail) on both the HMR and the general transport of hazardous materials.

    Specifically, PHMSA asks:

    1. What are the safety, regulatory, and policy implications of the design, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles on the requirements in the HMR? Please include any potential solutions PHMSA should consider.

    2. What are potential regulatory incompatibilities between the HMR and a future surface transportation system that incorporates automated vehicles? Specific HMR areas could include but are not limited to:

    (a) Emergency response information and hazard communication (b) Packaging and handling requirements, including pre-transportation functions (c) Incident response and reporting (d) Safety and security plans (e.g., en route security) (e) Modal requirements (e.g., highway and rail)

    3. Are there specific HMR requirements that would need modifications to become performance-based standards that can accommodate an automated vehicle operating in a surface transportation system?

    4. What automated surface transportation technologies are under development that are expected to be relevant to the safe transport of hazardous materials, and how might they be used in a surface transportation system?

    5. Under what circumstances do freight operators envision the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce using surface automated vehicles within the next 10 years?

    (a) To what extent do the HMR restrict the use of surface automated vehicles in the transportation of hazardous materials in non-bulk packaging in parcel delivery and less-than-truckload freight shipments by commercial motor vehicles?

    (b) To what extent do the HMR restrict the use of surface automated vehicles in the transportation of hazardous materials in bulk packaging by rail and commercial motor vehicles?

    6. What issues do automated technologies raise in hazardous materials surface transportation that are not present for human drivers or operators that PHMSA should address?

    7. Do HMR requirements that relate to the operation of surface automated vehicles carrying hazardous materials present different challenges than those that relate to ancillary tasks, such as inspections and packaging requirements?

    8. What solutions could PHMSA consider to address potential future regulatory incompatibilities between the HMR and surface automated vehicle technologies?

    9. What should PHMSA consider when reviewing applications for special permits seeking regulatory flexibility to allow for the transport of hazardous materials using automated technologies for surface modes?

    10. When considering long-term solutions to challenges the HMR may present to the development, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles, what information and other factors should PHMSA consider?

    11. What should PHMSA consider when developing future policy, guidance, and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials in surface transportation systems?

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2018. Drue Pearce, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05785 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 180110022-8022-01] RIN 0648-BH52 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 57 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes approval of, and regulations to implement, Framework Adjustment 57 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This rule would set 2018-2020 catch limits for 20 multispecies (groundfish) stocks, adjust allocations for several fisheries, revise accountability measures, and make other minor changes to groundfish management measures. This action is necessary to respond to updated scientific information and achieve the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan. The proposed measures are intended to help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0028, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0028;

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon and complete the required fields; and

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Groundfish Framework Adjustment 57.”

    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 us. 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, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of Framework Adjustment 57, including the draft Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council in support of this action are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet at: http://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies or http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Grant, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9145; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents 1. Summary of Proposed Measures 2. Fishing Year 2018 Shared U.S./Canada Quotas 3. Catch Limits for Fishing Years 2018-2020 4. Default Catch Limits for Fishing Year 2021 5. Revisions to Common Pool Trimester Allocations 6. Adjustments Due to Fishing Year 2016 Overages 7. Revisions to Atlantic Halibut Accountability Measures 8. Revisions to Southern Windowpane Flounder Accountability Measures for Non-Groundfish Trawl Vessels 9. Revision to the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Accountability Measures for Scallop Vessels 10. Recreational Fishery Measures 11. Fishing Year 2018 Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Authority 12. Administrative Regulatory Corrections Under Secretarial Authority 1. Summary of Proposed Measures

    This action would implement the management measures in Framework Adjustment 57 (Framework 57) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The New England Fishery Management Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary to implement Framework 57 in a March 14, 2018, letter from Council Chairman Dr. John Quinn to Regional Administrator Michael Pentony. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), we are required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures that the Council proposes based only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Otherwise, we must defer to the Council's policy choices. We are seeking comments on the Council's proposed measures in Framework 57 and whether they are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Through Framework 57, the Council proposes to:

    • Set fishing year 2018 shared U.S./Canada quotas for Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder and Eastern GB cod and haddock;

    • Set 2018-2020 specifications for 20 groundfish stocks;

    • Revise the common pool trimester total allowable catch (TAC) allocations for several stocks;

    • Revise accountability measures (AM) for Atlantic halibut for vessels issued any Federal permit;

    • Revise AMs for southern windowpane flounder for non-groundfish trawl vessels;

    • Revise the trigger for the scallop fishery's AM for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder; and

    • Grant the Regional Administrator authority to adjust recreational measures for GB cod.

    This action also proposes a number of other measures that are not part of Framework 57, but that may be, or are required to be, considered and implemented under our authority specified in the FMP. We are proposing these measures in conjunction with the Framework 57 proposed measures for expediency purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits proposed as part of Framework 57. The additional measures proposed in this action are listed below:

    Management measures for the common pool fishery—this action proposes fishing year 2018 trip limits for the common pool fishery.

    Adjustments for fishing year 2016 catch overages—this action would reduce the 2018 allocation of GB cod, Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, and witch flounder due to catch limit overages that occurred in fishing year 2016.

    Other regulatory corrections—we propose one administrative correction to address a minor rounding error in the regulations for the common pool trimester TACs. This proposed correction is described in the section “12. Regulatory Corrections.”

    2. 2018 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas Management of Transboundary Georges Bank Stocks

    Eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada under the United States/Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. The Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) is a government-industry committee made up of representatives from the United States and Canada. For historical information about the TMGC see: http://www.bio.gc.ca/info/intercol/tmgc-cogst/index-en.php. Each year, the TMGC recommends a shared quota for each stock based on the most recent stock information and the TMGC's harvest strategy. The TMGC's harvest strategy for setting catch levels is to maintain a low to neutral risk (less than 50 percent) of exceeding the fishing mortality limit for each stock. The harvest strategy also specifies that when stock conditions are poor, fishing mortality should be further reduced to promote stock rebuilding. The shared quotas are allocated between the United States and Canada based on a formula that considers historical catch (10-percent weighting) and the current resource distribution (90-percent weighting).

    For GB yellowtail flounder, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) also recommends an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the stock, which is typically used to inform the U.S. TMGC's discussions with Canada for the annual shared quota. Although the stock is jointly managed with Canada, and the TMGC recommends annual shared quotas, the Council may not set catch limits that would exceed the SSC's recommendation. The SSC does not recommend ABCs for eastern GB cod and haddock because they are management units of the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The SSC recommends overall ABCs for the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The shared U.S./Canada quota for eastern GB cod and haddock is included in these overall ABCs, and must be consistent with the SSC's recommendation for the total GB stocks.

    2018 U.S./Canada Quotas

    The Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee conducted assessments for the three-transboundary stocks in July 2017, and detailed summaries of these assessments can be found at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/. The TMGC met in September 2017 to recommend shared quotas for 2018 based on the updated assessments, and the Council adopted the TMGC's recommendations in Framework 57. The proposed 2018 shared U.S./Canada quotas, and each country's allocation, are listed in Table 1.

    Table 1—Proposed 2018 Fishing Year U.S./Canada Quotas (mt, Live Weight) and Percent of Quota Allocated to Each Country Quota Eastern
  • GB cod
  • Eastern
  • GB haddock
  • GB yellowtail
  • flounder
  • Total Shared Quota 951 40,000 300 U.S. Quota 257 (27%) 15,600 (39%) 213 (71%) Canadian Quota 694 (73%) 24,400 (61%) 87 (29%)

    The Council's proposed 2018 U.S. quota for eastern GB haddock would be a 47-percent decrease compared to 2017. This decrease is due to a decrease in biomass and a reduction in the portion of the shared quota that is allocated to the United States. The Council's proposed U.S. quota for eastern GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder would be a 76-percent and a 3-percent increase, respectively, compared to 2017, which are a result of increases in survey biomass and the portions of the shared quotas allocated to the United States. For a more detailed discussion of the TMGC's 2018 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance document at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/announcements/2017tmgcguiddoc.pdf.

    The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding require deducting any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder from the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If catch information for the 2017 fishing year indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its quota for any of the shared stocks, we will reduce the respective U.S. quotas for the 2018 fishing year in a future management action, as close to May 1, 2018, as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a portion of the U.S. quota exceeds its allocation and causes an overage of the overall U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied to that fishery's allocation in the following fishing year. This ensures that catch by one component of the overall fishery does not negatively affect another component of the overall fishery. An overage of the U.S. ABC of GB cod in 2016 is discussed in Section 6, Adjustments Due to Fishing Year 2016 Overages.

    3. Catch Limits for the 2018-2020 Fishing Years Summary of the Proposed Catch Limits

    Tables 2 through 9 show the proposed catch limits for the 2018-2020 fishing years. A brief summary of how these catch limits were developed is provided below. More details on the proposed catch limits for each groundfish stock can be found in Appendix II (Calculation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Limits, FY 2018-FY 2020) to the Framework 57 Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES for information on how to get this document).

    Through Framework 57, the Council proposes to adopt catch limits for the 20 groundfish stocks for the 2018-2020 fishing years based on assessments completed in 2017. Catch limit increases are proposed for 11 stocks: GB and GOM cod, GOM haddock, GB and Cape Cod (CC)/GOM yellowtail flounder, American plaice, witch flounder, GB winter flounder, redfish, pollock, and wolffish. For a number of stocks, the catch limits proposed in this action are lower than the catch limits set for the 2017 fishing year. Although some of these decreases are small, a 75-percent reduction is proposed for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and a 45-percent reduction is proposed for GOM winter flounder. The ABC for Atlantic halibut is a decrease from 2017, but is not expected to reduce landings because updated discard mortality information will result in a reduction in mortality attributed to discards. Table 2 details the percent change in the 2018 catch limit compared to the 2017 fishing year.

    Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches

    The overfishing limit (OFL) serves as the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. The OFL for each stock is calculated using the estimated stock size and FMSY (i.e., the fishing mortality rate that, if applied over the long term, would result in maximum sustainable yield). The OFL does not account for scientific uncertainty, so the SSC typically recommends an ABC that is lower than the OFL in order to account for this uncertainty. Usually, the greater the amount of scientific uncertainty, the lower the ABC is set compared to the OFL. For GB cod, GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder, the total ABC is then reduced by the amount of the Canadian quota (see Table 1 for the Canadian share of these stocks). Additionally, although GB winter flounder and Atlantic halibut are not jointly managed with Canada, there is some Canadian catch of these stocks. Because the total ABC must account for all sources of fishing mortality, expected Canadian catch of GB winter flounder (45 mt) and Atlantic halibut (33 mt) is deducted from the total ABC. The U.S. ABC is the amount available to the U.S. fishery after accounting for Canadian catch.

    Based on the SSC's recommendation, the Council recommended setting the OFL as unknown for GB yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, and Atlantic halibut. Empirical stock assessments are used for these three stocks, and these assessments can no longer provide quantitative estimates of the status determination criteria. In the temporary absence of an OFL, given recent catch data and estimated trends in stock biomass showing stability or improvement in stock conditions, we have preliminarily determined that these ABCs are a sufficient limit for preventing overfishing and are consistent with the National Standards. This action does not propose any changes to the status determination criteria for these stocks. During development of this action, we notified the Council that we are developing guidance on setting status determination criteria and relevant catch limits in cases when an empirical assessment cannot provide numerical estimates of traditional reference points.

    Table 2—Proposed Fishing Years 2018-2020 Overfishing Limits and Acceptable Biological Catches [mt, live weight] Stock 2018 OFL U.S. ABC Percent change from 2017 2019 OFL U.S. ABC 2020 OFL U.S. ABC GB Cod 3,047 1,591 139 3,047 2,285 3,047 2,285 GOM Cod 938 703 41 938 703 938 703 GB Haddock 94,274 48,714 −15 99,757 48,714 100,825 73,114 GOM Haddock 16,954 13,131 190 16,038 12,490 13,020 10,186 GB Yellowtail Flounder UNK 213 3 UNK 300 UNK SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 90 68 −75 90 68 90 68 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 662 511 20 736 511 848 511 American Plaice 2,260 1,732 30 2,099 1,609 1,945 1,492 Witch Flounder UNK 993 13 UNK 993 UNK 993 GB Winter Flounder 1,083 810 7 1,182 810 1,756 810 GOM Winter Flounder 596 447 −45 596 447 596 447 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 1,228 727 −7 1,228 727 1,228 727 Redfish 15,451 11,552 5 15,640 11,785 15,852 11,942 White Hake 3,885 2,938 −20 3,898 2,938 3,916 2,938 Pollock 51,680 40,172 88 53,940 40,172 57,240 40,172 N. Windowpane Flounder 122 92 −49 122 92 122 92 S. Windowpane Flounder 631 473 −24 631 473 631 473 Ocean Pout 169 127 −23 169 127 169 127 Atlantic Halibut UNK 104 −34 UNK 104 UNK 104 Atlantic Wolffish 120 90 10 120 90 120 90 SNE/MA = Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic; CC = Cape Cod; N = Northern; S = Southern. Note: An empty cell indicates no OFL/ABC is adopted for that year. These catch limits will be set in a future action. Annual Catch Limits Development of Annual Catch Limits

    The U.S. ABC for each stock is divided among the various fishery components to account for all sources of fishing mortality. First, an estimate of catch expected from state waters and the “other” sub-component (e.g., non-groundfish fisheries or some recreational groundfish fisheries) is deducted from the U.S. ABC. These sub-components are not subject to specific catch controls by the FMP. As a result, the state waters and other sub-components are not allocations, and these sub-components of the fishery are not subject to AMs if the catch limits are exceeded. After the state and other sub-components are deducted, the remaining portion of the U.S. ABC is distributed to the fishery components that receive an allocation for the stock. Components of the fishery that receive an allocation are subject to AMs if they exceed their respective catch limit during the fishing year. Fishing year 2016 overages of the GB cod, GOM cod, and witch flounder allocations are discussed in detail in Section 6, Adjustments Due to Fishing Year 2016 Overages.

    Once the U.S. ABC is divided, sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) are set by reducing the amount of the ABC distributed to each component of the fishery to account for management uncertainty. Management uncertainty seeks to account for the possibility that management measures will result in a level of catch greater than expected. For each stock and fishery component, management uncertainty is estimated using the following criteria: enforceability and precision of management measures; adequacy of catch monitoring; latent effort; and whether the composition of catch includes landings and discards, or is all discards.

    The total ACL is the sum of all of the sub-ACLs and state and other sub-components, and is the catch limit for a particular year after accounting for both scientific and management uncertainty. Landings and discards from all fisheries (commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries, state waters, and non-groundfish fisheries) are counted against the ACL for each stock.

    Sector and Common Pool Allocations

    For stocks allocated to sectors, the commercial groundfish sub-ACL is further divided into the non-sector (common pool) sub-ACL and the sector sub-ACL, based on the total vessel enrollment in sectors and the cumulative potential sector contributions (PSC) associated with those sectors. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs proposed in this action are based on fishing year 2018 PSCs and fishing year 2017 sector rosters. All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2018, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool for the 2018 fishing year. In addition to the enrollment delay, all permits that change ownership after December 1, 2017, may join a sector through April 30, 2018. We will publish final sector and common pool sub-ACLs based on final 2018 sector rosters as soon as possible after the start of the 2018 fishing year. These are adjusted later to reflect final sector enrollment.

    Common Pool Total Allowable Catches

    The common pool sub-ACL for each stock (except for SNE/MA winter flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and Atlantic halibut) is further divided into trimester TACs. The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs into trimesters was adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP (75 FR 18262; April 9, 2010) and was based on landing patterns at that time. Framework 57 proposes to revise the apportionment of TACs among the trimesters (discussed in detail in Section 5, Revisions to Common Pool Trimester Allocations). Once we project that 90 percent of the trimester TAC is caught for a stock, the trimester TAC area for that stock is closed for the remainder of the trimester. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing on a groundfish trip with gear capable of catching the pertinent stock. Any uncaught portion of the TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 is carried forward to the next trimester. Overages of the Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 TAC are deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any overages of the total common pool sub-ACL are deducted from the following fishing year's common pool sub-ACL for that stock. Uncaught portions of any trimester TAC may not be carried over into the following fishing year. Table 6 summarizes the common pool trimester TACs proposed in this action. These trimester TACs are based on the proposed changes to the apportionment of the common pool sub-ACL among the trimesters that are also included in this action.

    Incidental catch TACs are also specified for certain stocks of concern (i.e., stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing) for common pool vessels fishing in the special management programs (i.e., special access programs (SAP) and the Regular B Days-at-Sea (DAS) Program), in order to limit the catch of these stocks under each program. Tables 7 through 9 summarize the proposed Incidental Catch TACs for each stock and the distribution of these TACs to each special management program.

    Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP

    Overall fishing effort by both common pool and sector vessels in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is controlled by an overall TAC for GB haddock, which is the target species for this SAP. The GB haddock TAC for the SAP is based on the amount allocated to this SAP for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt) and adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB haddock biomass in relationship to its size in 2004. Based on this formula, the Council's proposed GB Haddock TAC for this SAP is 2,511 mt for the 2018 fishing year. Once this overall TAC is caught, the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP will be closed to all groundfish vessels for the remainder of the fishing year.

    Table 3—Proposed Catch Limits for the 2018 Fishing Year [mt, live weight] Stock Total
  • ACL
  • Groundfish
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary
  • sector
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary
  • common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • Recreational
  • sub-ACL
  • Midwater
  • trawl
  • fishery
  • Scallop
  • fishery
  • Small-mesh
  • fisheries
  • State
  • waters
  • sub-
  • component
  • Other
  • sub-
  • component
  • GB Cod 1,519 1,360 1,335 25 16 143 GOM Cod 666 610 377 13 220 47 9 GB Haddock 46,312 44,659 44,348 311 680 487 487 GOM Haddock 12,409 12,097 8,643 95 3,358 122 95 95 GB Yellowtail Flounder 206 169 167 3 33.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 66 42 34 8 4 2 17 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 490 398 381 18 51 41 American Plaice 1,649 1,580 1,550 29 35 35 Witch Flounder 948 849 830 19 40 60 GB Winter Flounder 787 731 725 6 0 57 GOM Winter Flounder 428 357 339 18 67 4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 700 518 456 62 73 109 Redfish 10,986 10,755 10,696 59 116 116 White Hake 2,794 2,735 2,713 22 29 29 Pollock 38,204 37,400 37,163 237 402 402 N. Windowpane Flounder 86 63 na 63 18 2 3 S. Windowpane Flounder 457 53 na 53 158 28 218 Ocean Pout 120 94 na 94 3 23 Atlantic Halibut 100 77 na 77 21 2 Atlantic Wolffish 84 82 na 82 1 1
    Table 4—Proposed Catch Limits for the 2019 Fishing Year [mt, live weight] Stock Total
  • ACL
  • Groundfish
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary
  • sector
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary
  • common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • Recreational
  • sub-ACL
  • Midwater
  • trawl
  • fishery
  • Scallop
  • fishery
  • Small-mesh
  • fisheries
  • State
  • waters
  • sub-
  • component
  • Other
  • sub-
  • component
  • GB Cod 2,182 1,954 1,918 36 23 206 GOM Cod 666 610 377 13 220 47 9 GB Haddock 46,312 44,659 44,348 311 680 487 487 GOM Haddock 11,803 11,506 8,222 90 3,194 116 91 91 GB Yellowtail Flounder 291 239 235 4 47 6 0 0 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 66 32 26 6 15 2 17 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 490 398 381 18 51 41 American Plaice 1,532 1,467 1,440 27 32 32 Witch Flounder 948 849 830 19 40 60 GB Winter Flounder 787 731 725 6 0 57 GOM Winter Flounder 428 357 339 18 67 4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 700 518 456 62 73 109 Redfish 11,208 10,972 10,911 60 118 118 White Hake 2,794 2,735 2,713 22 29 29 Pollock 38,204 37,400 37,163 237 402 402 N. Windowpane Flounder 86 63 63 18 2 3 S. Windowpane Flounder 457 53 53 158 28 218 Ocean Pout 120 94 94 3 23 Atlantic Halibut 100 77 77 21 2 Atlantic Wolffish 84 82 82 1 1
    Table 5—Proposed Catch Limits for the 2020 Fishing Year [mt, live weight] Stock Total
  • ACL
  • Groundfish
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary
  • sector
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary
  • common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • Recreational
  • sub-ACL
  • Midwater
  • trawl
  • fishery
  • Scallop
  • fishery
  • Small-mesh
  • fisheries
  • State
  • waters
  • sub-
  • component
  • Other
  • sub-
  • component
  • GB Cod 2,182 1,954 1,918 36 23 206 GOM Cod 666 610 377 13 220 47 9 GB Haddock 69,509 67,027 66,560 467 1,020 731 731 GOM Haddock 9,626 9,384 6,705 74 2,605 95 74 74 GB Yellowtail Flounder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 66 31 25 6 16 2 17 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 490 398 381 18 51 41 American Plaice 1,420 1,361 1,335 25 30 30 Witch Flounder 948 849 830 19 40 60 GB Winter Flounder 787 731 725 6 0 57 GOM Winter Flounder 428 357 339 18 67 4 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 700 518 456 62 73 109 Redfish 11,357 11,118 11,057 61 119 119 White Hake 2,794 2,735 2,713 22 29 29 Pollock 38,204 37,400 37,163 237 402 402 N. Windowpane Flounder 86 63 63 2 3 S. Windowpane Flounder 457 53 53 158 28 218 Ocean Pout 120 94 94 3 23 Atlantic Halibut 100 77 77 21 2 Atlantic Wolffish 84 82 82 1 1
    Table 6—Proposed Fishing Years 2018-2020 Common Pool Trimester TACs [mt, live weight] Stock 2018 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 2019 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 2020 Trimester 1 Trimester 2 Trimester 3 GB Cod 7.0 8.5 9.6 10.1 12.3 13.7 10.1 12.3 13.7 GOM Cod 6.2 4.2 2.3 6.2 4.2 2.3 6.2 4.2 2.3 GB Haddock 84.0 102.6 124.4 84.0 102.6 124.4 126.1 154.1 186.7 GOM Haddock 25.6 24.7 44.6 24.4 23.5 42.4 19.9 19.1 34.6 GB Yellowtail Flounder 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.7 1.1 1.9 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 1.7 2.3 4.2 1.3 1.7 3.2 1.3 1.7 3.1 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 10.0 4.6 3.0 10.0 4.6 3.0 10.0 4.6 3.0 American Plaice 21.8 2.4 5.3 20.3 2.2 4.9 18.8 2.0 4.6 Witch Flounder 10.4 3.8 4.7 10.4 3.8 4.7 10.4 3.8 4.7 GB Winter Flounder 0.5 1.4 4.1 0.5 1.4 4.1 0.5 1.4 4.1 GOM Winter Flounder 6.5 6.7 4.4 6.5 6.7 4.4 6.5 6.7 4.4 Redfish 14.8 18.4 26.1 15.1 18.7 26.6 15.3 19.0 27.0 White Hake 8.3 6.8 6.8 8.3 6.8 6.8 8.3 6.8 6.8 Pollock 66.4 83.0 87.7 66.4 83.0 87.7 66.4 83.0 87.7 Note. An empty cell indicates that no catch limit has been set yet for these stocks. These catch limits will be set in a future management action. Table 7—Proposed Common Pool Incidental Catch TACs for the 2018-2020 Fishing Years [mt, live weight] Stock Percentage of
  • common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • 2018 2019 2020
    GB Cod 2 0.50 0.72 0.72 GOM Cod 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 GB Yellowtail Flounder 2 0.05 0.07 0.00 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 1 0.18 0.18 0.18 American Plaice 5 1.47 1.37 1.27 Witch Flounder 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 1 0.62 0.62 0.62
    Table 8—Percentage of Incidental Catch TACs Distributed to Each Special Management Program Stock Regular B DAS
  • program
  • Closed area I
  • hook gear
  • haddock SAP
  • Eastern
  • US/CA
  • haddock SAP
  • GB Cod 50 16 34 GOM Cod 100 GB Yellowtail Flounder 50 50 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 100 American Plaice 100 Witch Flounder 100 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 100 White Hake 100
    Table 9—Proposed Fishing Years 2018-2020 Incidental Catch TACs for Each Special Management Program [mt, live weight] Stock Regular B DAS
  • program
  • 2018 2019 2020 Closed area I hook
  • gear haddock SAP
  • 2018 2019 2020 Eastern
  • U.S./Canada
  • haddock SAP
  • 2018 2019 2020
    GB Cod 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.25 0.25 GOM Cod 0.13 0.13 0.13 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a GB Yellowtail Flounder 0.03 0.04 0.00 n/a n/a n/a 0.03 0.04 0.00 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 0.18 0.18 0.18 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a American Plaice 1.47 1.37 1.27 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Witch Flounder 0.95 0.95 0.95 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SNE/MA Winter Flounder 0.62 0.62 0.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
    4. Default Catch Limits for the 2021 Fishing Year

    Framework 53 established a mechanism for setting default catch limits in the event a future management action is delayed. If final catch limits have not been implemented by the start of a fishing year on May 1, then default catch limits are set at 35 percent of the previous year's catch limit, effective until July 31 of that fishing year, or when replaced by new catch limits. If this value exceeds the Council's recommendation for the upcoming fishing year, the default catch limits will be reduced to an amount equal to the Council's recommendation for the upcoming fishing year. Because groundfish vessels are not able to fish if final catch limits have not been implemented, this measure was established to prevent disruption to the groundfish fishery. Additional description of the default catch limit mechanism is provided in the preamble to the Framework 53 final rule (80 FR 25110; May 1, 2015).

    The default catch limits for 2021 are shown in Table 10. The default limits would become effective May 1, 2021, until replaced by final specifications, although they will remain in effect through no later no later than July 31, 2021. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs in Table 10 are based on existing 2017 sector rosters, and will be adjusted for new specifications beginning in fishing year 2021 based on rosters from the 2020 fishing year. In addition, prior to the start of the 2021 fishing year, we will evaluate whether any of the default catch limits announced in this rule exceed the Council's recommendations for 2021. If necessary, we will announce adjustments prior to May 1, 2021.

    Table 10—Default Specifications for the 2021 Fishing Year [mt, live weight] Stock U.S. ABC Total ACL Groundfish sub-ACL Preliminary sector
  • sub-ACL
  • Preliminary common pool sub-ACL Midwater trawl fishery
    GOM Cod 800 764 684 671 13 GB Haddock 246 233 213 132 4 GOM Haddock 25,590 24,328 23,460 23,296 163 1,020 GB Yellowtail Flounder 3,565 3,369 3,284 2,347 26 95 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 0 0 0 0 0 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 24 23 11 9 2 American Plaice 179 172 139 133 6 Witch Flounder 522 497 476 467 9 GB Winter Flounder 348 332 297 291 7 GOM Winter Flounder 284 276 256 254 2 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 156 150 125 119 6 Redfish 254 245 181 160 22 White Hake 4,180 3,975 3,891 3,870 21 Pollock 1,028 978 957 950 8 N. Windowpane Flounder 14,060 13,371 13,090 13,007 83 S. Windowpane Flounder 32 30 22 0 22 Ocean Pout 166 160 18 0 18 Atlantic Halibut 44 42 33 0 33 Atlantic Wolffish 36 35 27 0 27
    5. Revisions to Common Pool Trimester Allocations

    As discussed above in Section 3, Catch Limits for Fishing Years 2018-2020, the common pool sub-ACL for each stock (except for SNE/MA winter flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and Atlantic halibut) is further divided into trimester TACs. The percentages of the common pool sub-ACL allocated to each trimester, as determined in Amendment 16, are shown in Table 11. The Council developed this initial distribution based on recent fishing effort at the time after considering the influence of regulatory changes on recent landings patterns. Amendment 16 specified that the trimester TAC apportionment could be adjusted on a biennial basis with specifications based on the most recent 5-year period available. Framework 57 would grant the Regional Administrator authority to modify the trimester TAC apportionments, for stocks that have experienced early closures in Trimester 1 or 2, on a biennial basis using the process specified in Amendment 16.

    Framework 57 proposes to revise the apportionment of the common pool sub-ACL among the trimesters, using the calculation method specified in Amendment 16, for stocks that have experienced early closure in Trimester 1 or 2 since the 2010 fishing year. The stocks that meet these criteria are: GB cod; GOM cod; SNE/MA yellowtail flounder; Cape Cod/GOM yellowtail flounder; American plaice; and witch flounder. The Trimester 1 portion of the sub-ACL for each of these stocks would increase, with the exception of SNE/MA yellowtail, which remains unchanged. The trimester 2 portion of the sub-ACL for each of these stocks would be reduced. The trimester 3 portion of the TAC would be unchanged for GB cod; increased for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder; and decreased for GOM cod, Cape Cod/GOM yellowtail flounder, American plaice, and witch flounder. The proposed trimester TAC apportionments for these stocks are shown in Table 12.

    Table 11—Trimester TAC Apportionments Set in Amendment 16 Stock Trimester 1
  • (percent)
  • Trimester 2
  • (percent)
  • Trimester 3
  • (percent)
  • GB Cod 25 37 38 GOM Cod 27 36 37 GB Haddock 27 33 40 GOM Haddock 27 26 47 GB Yellowtail 19 30 52 SNE/MA Yellowtail 21 37 42 CC/GOM Yellowtail 35 35 30 American Plaice 24 36 40 Witch Flounder 27 31 42 GB Winter 8 24 69 GOM Winter 37 38 25 Redfish 25 31 44 White Hake 38 31 31 Pollock 28 35 37
    Table 12—Proposed Revisions to Trimester TAC Apportionments Stock Trimester 1
  • (percent)
  • Trimester 2
  • (percent)
  • Trimester 3
  • (percent)
  • GB Cod 28 34 38 GOM Cod 49 33 18 SNE/MA Yellowtail 21 28 51 CC/GOM Yellowtail 57 26 17 American Plaice 74 8 18 Witch Flounder 55 20 25
    6. Adjustments Due to Fishing Year 2016 Overages

    If the overall ACL is exceeded due to catch from vessels fishing in state waters outside of the FMP or from vessels fishing in non-groundfish fisheries that do not receive an allocation, the overage is distributed to the components of the fishery with an allocation. If a fishery component's catch and its share of the ACL overage exceed the component's allocation, then the applicable AMs must be implemented. In the case of the commercial groundfish fishery, the AMs require a reduction of the sector or common pool sub-ACL following an overage.

    In fishing year 2016, the overall ACL was exceeded for GOM cod and witch flounder, and the U.S. ABC was exceeded for GB cod (Table 13). This proposed rule includes a description of fishing year 2016 catch overages and required adjustments to fishing year 2018 allocations. These adjustments are not part of Framework 57. We are including them in conjunction with Framework 57 proposed measures for expediency purposes, and because they relate to the catch limits proposed in Framework 57.

    Total GB cod catch exceeded the total ACL and U.S. ABC due to a minor overage by the common pool (2.8 mt) and higher than expected catches by the state and other sub-components. Sectors did not fully harvest their allocation. The overage of the common pool sub-ACL has already been addressed, as required, through a reduction of the 2017 common pool sub-ACL (82 FR 51778; November 8, 2017). The remaining overage (166 mt) must be paid back by the common pool and sectors in proportion to their shares of the 2016 groundfish fishery ACL. The sector sub-ACL underage in 2016 reduces the adjustment to the 2018 sector sub-ACL. No other fishery has an allocation of GB cod, and as a result, this overage is distributed only to sectors and the common pool.

    Total GOM cod catch exceeded the total ACL due to an overage by the recreational fishery and higher than expected catch by the state sub-component. Both the sector and common pool sub-ACLs were underharvested. The recreational fishery's overage of its 2016 sub-ACL has been addressed by a change in recreational fishery management measures as an AM for fishing year 2017 (82 FR 35457; July 31, 2017). The remaining overage (50 mt) due to state waters catch must be distributed among the common pool, sectors, and the recreational fishery in proportion to their shares of the 2016 groundfish fishery ACL. The commercial fishery AM for overages is a pound-for-pound payback that results in a deduction of the overage amount from the fishing year 2018 commercial fishery sub-ACLs. The sector and common pool sub-ACL underages in 2016 reduce the adjustment to the 2018 sector and common pool sub-ACLs. The portion of the overage allocated to the recreational fishery does not result in a pound-for-pound reduction of that sub-ACL. Rather, the recreational AM requires management measures for fishing year 2018 to be adjusted to address the overage.

    Total witch flounder catch exceeded the total ACL due to higher than expected catch from vessels fishing in state waters outside of the FMP. Both the sector and common pool sub-ACLs were underharvested. Only the commercial groundfish fishery has an allocation for this stock, so the remaining overage (38 mt) must be paid back by the common pool and sectors in proportion to their shares of the 2016 groundfish fishery ACL. The sector and common pool sub-ACL underages in 2016 reduce the adjustment to the 2018 sector and common pool sub-ACLs.

    Each sub-component's payback amounts for these stocks is shown in Table 14. Revised 2017 allocations, incorporating these payback amounts, for these stocks are shown in Table 15.

    Table 13—2016 ABCs, ACLs, Catch, and Overages [mt, live weight] Stock U.S. ABC Total ACL Catch Overage Amount to be
  • paid back
  • GB Cod 762 730 1,132.1 402.1 165.97 GOM Cod 500 473 633.7 160.7 37.66 Witch Flounder 878 441 460.3 19.3 19.20
    Table 14—2016 Payback Amounts [mt, live weight] Stock Total Sector Common pool Recreational GB Cod 402.1 162.57 3.40 n/a GOM Cod 160.7 21.05 0.00 16.61 Witch Flounder 19.3 19.15 0.05 n/a Note: “n/a” indicates that the stock is not allocated to that sub-component of the fishery. A value of 0.00 indicates that no payback is required. Table 15—Revised 2018 Allocations [mt, live weight] Stock Total ACL Groundfish
  • sub-ACL
  • Initial
  • preliminary
  • sector sub-ACL
  • Revised
  • preliminary
  • sector sub-ACL
  • Initial
  • preliminary
  • common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • Revised
  • preliminary
  • common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • GB Cod 1,519 1,360 1,335.17 1,172.61 25.13 21.73 GOM Cod 666 610 376.92 355.87 12.73 unchanged Witch Flounder 948 849 830.09 810.94 18.93 18.88
    7. Revisions to Atlantic Halibut Accountability Measures

    The FMP includes two reactive AMs for Atlantic halibut that affect the Federal commercial groundfish fishery. If the Atlantic halibut ACL is exceeded by an amount greater than the uncertainty buffer (i.e., the ABC is exceeded), then commercial groundfish vessels are prohibited from retaining Atlantic halibut and several gear-restricted areas are implemented for commercial groundfish vessels (Figure 1). When the Atlantic halibut AM is triggered, trawl vessels fishing in the Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area may only use a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, a rope separator trawl, or other approved gear. When in effect, groundfish vessels with gillnet or longline gear may not fish or be in the Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Areas, unless transiting with gear stowed or using approved gear.

    Framework 57 would extend the zero-possession AM to all Federal permit holders (including federally-permitted scallop, lobster, and highly migratory species general category vessels). Vessels issued only a Northeast multispecies charter/party permit, an Atlantic highly migratory species angling permit, and/or an Atlantic highly migratory species charter/headboat permit would be exempt from the zero-possession AM. Dealer data documents that federally-permitted vessels on non-groundfish trips, especially commercial vessels with lobster and highly migratory species permits, land significant amounts of halibut. The intent of expanding the AM is to reduce the catch of halibut by federally-permitted vessels not currently subject to the AM and to facilitate enforcement of Federal fishery limits. It is difficult to enforce the prohibition of possession at sea when some federally-permitted vessels can possess Atlantic halibut in state waters. Prohibiting all federally-permitted vessels from possessing Atlantic halibut can be enforced at the dock as well as at sea. This is designed to ensure a reduction in directed fishing effort by federally-permitted vessels that is expected to increase the probability that catch will be below the ACL.

    Framework 57 would also modify the gear-restricted AM areas for Federal groundfish vessels using updated information. Based on an updated evaluation of the existing AM areas, the areas would be modified by allowing access to places and times where Atlantic halibut encounter rates are low, and protect areas and times where encounter rates are highest. This would allow groundfish trawl and fixed gear vessels additional flexibility while continuing to reduce catch of halibut when the AMs are triggered (Figure 2). Framework 57 would eliminate the Fixed Gear AM Area 1 on Stellwagen Bank; exempt longline gear from Fixed Gear AM Area 2 on Platts Bank; allow gillnet gear in Fixed Gear AM Area 2 from November through February; and allow standard trawl gear in the Trawl Gear AM Area between 41 degrees 40 minutes N latitude and 42 degrees N latitude from April through July (see dashed line in Figure 2). These modifications would likely have minimal impacts on the Atlantic halibut stock due to the low encounter rates and low catch rates in the seasons and areas included, and would preserve fishing opportunities for vessels targeting other species.

    EP22MR18.002 EP22MR18.003 8. Revisions to Southern Windowpane Flounder AMs for Non-Groundfish Trawl Vessels

    The southern windowpane flounder AMs are gear restricted areas that affect groundfish trawl vessels and non-groundfish trawl vessels using a codend mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater (see Figure 3). This includes vessels that target summer flounder, scup, and skates. The AM for large-mesh non-groundfish fisheries is implemented if the total ACL is exceeded by more than the management uncertainty buffer and catch by the other sub-component exceeds what was expected. When the AM is triggered, large-mesh non-groundfish vessels fishing with trawl gear with codend mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater are required to use selective trawl gear to minimize the catch of flatfish in the AM areas. Approved gears include the separator trawl, Ruhle trawl, mini-Ruhle trawl, and rope trawl, which are inefficient at catching the species targeted by the non-groundfish large-mesh trawl fleet. The FMP includes several provisions that allow a reduction in the size and duration of the AM for groundfish vessels if certain stock status criteria are met. Framework 57 would extend similar provisions to the large mesh non-groundfish fleet and modify the current gear restricted areas that would apply to the non-groundfish fleet when an AM is triggered.

    EP22MR18.004 Reducing the Size of the AM

    Framework 57 would scale the size of the AM areas based on the condition of the stock and catch in the year after the overage. Similar to the AM for the groundfish fishery, when the stock is rebuilt and the biomass criterion (defined below) is greater than the fishing year catch, the AM areas may be adjusted to reflect these conditions. Based on an updated evaluation of the existing AM areas, Framework 57 would reduce the size of the AM areas and shorten the seasons for non-groundfish trawl vessels using a 5-inch (12.7-cm) mesh or greater cod end. These modifications would allow additional flexibility for affected vessels while continuing to reduce impacts on the southern windowpane stock, similar to provisions already implemented for the groundfish fishery.

    When the large AM area has been triggered, we would then determine whether the following criteria are met:

    (1) The stock is rebuilt; and

    (2) The biomass criterion is greater than the fishing year catch. Framework 57 defines the biomass criterion as the 3-year centered average of the 3 most recent surveys multiplied by 75 percent of the FMSY of the most recent assessment. FMSY is the fishing mortality rate that, if applied over the long term, would result in maximum sustainable yield.

    If we determine that these criteria are met, the small AM area would be implemented rather than the large AM area. This AM trigger would better account for the uncertainty associated with this index-based stock because it would evaluate an overage in the context of the biomass and exploitation trends in the stock assessment. As explained in the EA, using survey information to determine the size of the AM is appropriate because windowpane flounder is assessed with an index-based method, possession is prohibited, and the ABCs and ACLs are not based on a projection that accounts for possible increases in biomass over time. This change would minimize the economic impacts of the AM for a rebuilt stock, while still correcting for any overage and mitigating potential biological consequences.

    Reducing the Duration of the AM

    This action also proposes to grant the Regional Administrator authority to remove the southern windowpane flounder AM early for non-groundfish trawl vessels if certain criteria are met. If an overage in year 1 triggers the AM for year 3, and we determine that the applicable windowpane flounder ACL was not exceeded in year 2, then the Regional Administrator would be authorized to remove the AM on or after September 1 once year-end data for year 2 are complete. This reduced duration would not occur if we determine during year 3 that a year 3 overage of the southern windowpane flounder ACL has occurred. Final year-end catch data are not available until several months after the end of the fishing year, which results in delayed implementation of AMs for southern windowpane flounder. Because of this delay, it is possible that, although an overage occurs in year 1, a subsequent overage may not occur in year 2. If an overage does not occur in year 2, implementing an AM for the entire duration of year 3 may not be necessary. An underage in year 2, coupled with an AM for at least 4 months of year 3, would sufficiently correct and mitigate any overage for southern windowpane flounder, while continuing to provide an incentive to avoid future overages. This proposed provision is similar to provisions already implemented for the groundfish fishery.

    Modification of the Gear-Restricted Areas

    Framework 57 would revise the area and season of the AM areas for non-groundfish trawl vessels using a codend mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater based on an updated evaluation of the existing AM areas using recent data (see Figure 4). The geographic area of the small AM area would remain unchanged, but the AM would be in effect from September through April, rather than the whole year. The large AM area south of Long Island would remain unchanged, but the large AM area east of Long Island would shrink to a smaller geographic area made up of the small AM area and the eastern most 10-minute square of the current large AM area. Both large AM areas would be closed year-round when triggered. These changes would not affect the AM areas applicable to groundfish trawl vessels. Based on recent data, these modifications are likely to have minimal impacts on the southern windowpane flounder stock because of the low bycatch ratios documented in the areas that would no longer be closed. The revised areas are intended to provide additional opportunities for the non-groundfish fleet to pursue target stocks, while still maintaining the necessary conservation benefits of the AMs.

    EP22MR18.005 9. Revision to the SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder AMs for Scallop Vessels

    The scallop fishery is allocated sub-ACLs for four stocks: GB yellowtail flounder; SNE/MA yellowtail flounder; northern windowpane flounder; and southern windowpane flounder. These allocations are made to manage the scallop fishery's bycatch of these stocks and mitigate potential negative impacts to the groundfish fishery. Framework 47 (77 FR 26104; May 2, 2012) established a policy for triggering scallop fishery AMs. The AMs are triggered if the scallop fishery either exceeds its sub-ACL for a stock and the overall ACL for that stock is exceeded, or the scallop fishery exceeds its sub-ACL for a stock by 50 or more percent. Framework 56 (82 FR 35660; August 1, 2017) made a change to this policy for GB yellowtail flounder and northern windowpane flounder to remove the second trigger for the 2017 and 2018 fishing years. Thus, the AMs for GB yellowtail flounder and northern windowpane flounder are triggered only if the scallop fishery exceeds its sub-ACL and the overall ACL is exceeded. Framework 57 would expand that change to the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder stock for the 2018 fishing year.

    For fishing year 2018, the AM for the scallop fishery's sub-ACL would be triggered only if the scallop fishery's sub-ACL and the overall ACL for the stock is exceeded. Framework 57 would reduce the 2018 SNE/MA yellowtail flounder ABC by 75 percent when compared to 2017. Overfishing occurs when the overfishing limit is exceeded and is likely to occur only if the total ACL is exceeded, which would trigger the AM to prevent subsequent ACL overages and correct the cause of the overage. The intent of this change to the trigger is to provide flexibility for the scallop fishery to better achieve optimal yield, despite a reduction in the ACL, while continuing to prevent overfishing. To align with changes to the AM triggers for GB yellowtail flounder and northern windowpane flounder, and to reduce the potential risk for the groundfish fishery, this change would be effective for 1 year.

    10. Recreational Fishery Measures

    GB cod is not allocated to the recreational fishery. Instead, a catch target is set. Recreational fishery management measures were designed and put in place to control recreational catch. The Council set the recreational measures for GB cod in 2010 through Amendment 16. The current recreational minimum size for GB cod is 22 inches (55.9 cm), and private recreational vessels have a possession limit of 10 fish per person per day. There is no possession limit for charter or party vessels. The recreational fishery does not have an allocation of GB cod, and as a result, no AMs apply to this fishery in the event of an ACL overage. The Council must undertake an action (amendment or framework adjustment) to make changes to the recreational measures.

    In response to increasing recreational catch in recent years and unusually high recreational catch in 2016 that contributed to an ACL overage, the Council calculated a recreational catch target for GB cod of 138 mt for 2018-2020. This catch target was calculated using the average catch (landings and discards) of the most recent 5 calendar years included in the GB cod stock assessment. This catch target was used in setting the values of the state and other sub-components (see Appendix II of the EA). To prevent future overages of the GB cod ACL, Framework 57 would give the Regional Administrator authority to set recreational measures for fishing years 2018 and 2019 to prevent the catch target from being exceeded. After consultation with the Council, any changes to recreational measures would be made consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

    This action only proposes to grant the Regional Administrator authority to change recreational management measures for GB cod. However, no changes to recreational measures are included in this action. A separate rulemaking expected in March 2018 will consider GOM cod and haddock and GB cod recreational management measures for the 2018 fishing year.

    11. Fishing Year 2018 Annual Measures Under Regional Administrator Regulatory Authority

    The FMP and its implementing regulations gives the Regional Administrator authority to implement certain types of management measures for the common pool fishery, the U.S./Canada Management Area, and Special Management Programs on an annual basis, or as needed. This proposed rule includes a description of these management measures that are being considered for the 2018 fishing year to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on whether the proposed measures are appropriate. These measures are not part of Framework 57, and were not specifically proposed by the Council. We are proposing them in conjunction with Framework 57 measures in this action for expediency purposes, and because they relate to the catch limits proposed in Framework 57.

    Common Pool Trip Limits

    Tables 16 and 17 provide a summary of the current common pool trip limits for fishing year 2017 and the initial trip limits proposed for fishing year 2018. The proposed 2018 trip limits were developed after considering changes to the common pool sub-ACLs and potential sector enrollment, proposed trimester TACs for 2018, catch rates of each stock during 2017, and other available information.

    The default cod trip limit is 300 lb (136 kg) for Handgear A vessels and 75 lb (34 kg) for Handgear B vessels. If the GOM or GB cod landing limit for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS drops below 300 lb (136 kg), then the respective Handgear A cod trip limit must be reduced to the same limit. Similarly, the Handgear B trip limit must be adjusted proportionally (rounded up to the nearest 25 lb (11 kg)) to the DAS limit. This action proposes a GOM cod landing limit of 50 lb (23 kg) per DAS for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS, which is 94 percent lower than the default limit specified in the regulations for these vessels (800 lb (363 kg) per DAS). As a result, the proposed Handgear A trip limit for GOM cod would be reduced to 50 lb (23 kg) per trip, and the proposed Handgear B trip limit for GOM cod would be maintained at 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. This action proposes a GB cod landing limit of 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS, which is 95 percent lower than the 2,000-lb (907-kg) per DAS default limit specified in the regulations for these vessels. As a result, the proposed Handgear A trip limit for GB cod would be 100 lb (45 kg) per trip, and the proposed Handgear B trip limit for GB cod would be 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.

    Vessels with a Small Vessel category permit can possess up to 300 lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail, combined, per trip. For the 2018 fishing year, we are proposing that the maximum amount of GOM cod and haddock (within the 300-lb (136-kg) trip limit) be set equal to the possession limits applicable to multispecies DAS vessels (see Table 16). This adjustment is necessary to ensure that the trip limit applicable to the Small Vessel category permit is consistent with reductions to the trip limits for other common pool vessels, as described above.

    Table 16—Proposed Common Pool Trip Limits for the 2018 Fishing Year Stock Current 2017 trip limit Proposed 2018 trip limit GB Cod (outside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) Possession Prohibited 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS,
  • up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip
  • GB Cod (inside Eastern U.S./Canada Area) 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to 500 (227 kg) lb per trip. GOM Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS, up to 100 lb (45 kg) per trip 50 lb (23 kg) per DAS, up to 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. GB Haddock 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per trip. GOM Haddock 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip 1,000 lb (454 kg) per DAS, up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip. GB Yellowtail Flounder 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 500 lb (227 kg) per DAS, up to 1,000 lb per trip 100 lb (45 kg) per DAS, up to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip. Cape Cod (CC)/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS, up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. American plaice 500 lb (227 kg) per trip 750 lb (340 kg) per DAS, up to 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. Witch Flounder 400 lb (181 kg) per trip. GB Winter Flounder 250 lb (113 kg) per trip. GOM Winter Flounder 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip. SNE/MA Winter Flounder 2,000 lb (907 kg) per DAS, up to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per trip. Redfish Unlimited. White hake 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip. Pollock Unlimited. Atlantic Halibut 1 fish per trip. Windowpane Flounder Ocean Pout Possession Prohibited. Atlantic Wolffish
    Table 17—Proposed Cod Trips Limits for Handgear A, Handgear B, and Small Vessel Category Permits for the 2018 Fishing Year Permit Current 2017 trip limit Proposed 2017 trip limit Handgear A GOM Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per trip 50 lb (23 kg) per trip. Handgear A GB Cod Possession Prohibited 100 lb (45 kg) per trip. Handgear B GOM Cod 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. Handgear B GB Cod Possession Prohibited 25 lb (11 kg) per trip. Small Vessel Category 300 lb (136 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder combined; additionally, vessels are limited to the common pool DAS limit for all stocks. Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP

    This action proposes to allocate zero trips for common pool vessels to target yellowtail flounder within the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP for fishing year 2018. Vessels could still fish in this SAP in 2018 to target haddock, but must fish with a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or hook gear. Vessels would not be allowed to fish in this SAP using flounder trawl nets. This SAP is open from August 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019.

    We have the authority to determine the allocation of the total number of trips into the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP based on several criteria, including the GB yellowtail flounder catch limit and the amount of GB yellowtail flounder caught outside of the SAP. The FMP specifies that no trips should be allocated to the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP if the available GB yellowtail flounder catch is insufficient to support at least 150 trips with a 15,000-lb (6,804-kg) trip limit (or 2,250,000 lb (1,020,600 kg)). This calculation accounts for the projected catch from the area outside the SAP. Based on the proposed fishing year 2018 GB yellowtail flounder groundfish sub-ACL of 372,581 lb (169,000 kg), there is insufficient GB yellowtail flounder to allocate any trips to the SAP, even if the projected catch from outside the SAP area is zero. Further, given the low GB yellowtail flounder catch limit, catch rates outside of this SAP are more than adequate to fully harvest the 2018 GB yellowtail flounder allocation.

    12. Administrative Regulatory Corrections Under Secretarial Authority

    This rule proposes to correct a minor error in the regulations that specify the apportionment of the common pool sub-ACLs among the trimesters. This change is proposed under the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that FMPs or amendments are implemented in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed change to the regulations is necessary to correct a rounding error and ensure that not more than 100 percent of the common pool sub-ACL is allocated among the trimesters.

    In § 648.82(n), the proportion of the common pool sub-ACLs allocated to each trimester for GB yellowtail flounder and GB winter flounder are corrected to sum to 100 percent to address a previous rounding error. The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs into trimesters was adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP and was based on landing patterns at that time. Due to a rounding error in the calculations, the apportionment of the TAC among trimesters for GB yellowtail flounder and GB winter flounder each adds up to 101 percent. Although this error has not lead to overages, we are correcting this error to ensure that not more than 100 percent of the common pool sub-ACL is allocated among the trimesters.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with Framework 57, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. In making the final determination, we will consider the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.

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

    This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or takings implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual determination for this determination is as follows.

    Periodic framework adjustments are used to revise the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in response to new information to support catch limits that prevent overfishing and other adjustments to improve management measures included in the FMP. Framework 57 proposes to revise groundfish catch limits for 20 groundfish stocks for fishing years 2018-2020 (May 1, 2018, through April 30, 2020), adjust several allocations and AMs for groundfish catch in non-groundfish fisheries, and make other administrative changes to groundfish management measures. Our analysis of the likely economic impacts of Framework 57 measures predicts that the proposed action will have positive impacts on fishing vessels, purchasers of seafood products, recreational anglers, and operators of party/charter businesses.

    For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS 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 engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 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 has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination of whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the most recent 3 years for which data are available (from 2014 through 2016).

    As of May 1, 2016 (beginning of fishing year 2016), NMFS had issued 899 limited access groundfish permits associated with vessels, 453 open access groundfish handgear permits, 733 limited access and general category Atlantic sea scallop permits, 766 small-mesh multispecies permits, 81 Atlantic herring permits, and 794 permits to vessels that are not permitted in the groundfish fishery but have been active in the large-mesh non-groundfish fishery over the past year. Therefore, this action potentially regulates 3,727 permits. Some of these permits are issued to the same vessel. When accounting for this overlap between fisheries, this action potentially regulates 2,393 permitted vessels. Each vessel may be individually owned or part of a larger corporate ownership structure. For RFA purposes, the proposed action ultimately regulates the ownership entity. Ownership entities are identified on June 1 of each year based on the list of all permit numbers, for the most recent complete calendar year, that have applied for any type of Northeast Federal fishing permit. The current ownership data set is based on calendar year 2016 permits and contains gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2014 through 2016.

    Based on the ownership data, 1,798 distinct business entities hold at least one permit that the proposed action potentially regulates. Of these, 205 are inactive and do not have revenues. Of the 1,798 entities, 1,789 entities are categorized as small, and 9 entities are categorized as large.

    This action would set catch limits for groundfish stocks and revise AMs for numerous fisheries that catch groundfish species. These measures would enhance the operational flexibility of fishermen and increase profits. The measures proposed in Framework 57 are expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities because they are expected to generate $27 million in additional gross revenues, compared to expected gross revenues if no action is taken. The measures are also expected to generate $9 million in additional gross revenues relative to the most recent fishing year. Additional details of these economic analyses are included in Framework 57 (see ADDRESSES).

    Description of Proposed Framework 57 Measures Annual Catch Limits

    This action would set 2018-2020 catch limits for 20 groundfish stocks and 2018 catch limits for the 3 stocks jointly managed with Canada (Eastern Georges Bank (GB) cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder) based on assessments completed in 2017.

    Revisions to Common Pool Trimester Allocations

    The common pool quota for each stock is split into trimester total allowable catches (TAC) in fixed proportions based on historic fishing effort, and this distribution has not been changed since 2010. Using recent data, Framework 57 revises the proportion of the TAC allocated to each trimester for six stocks that have experienced early closures in either Trimester 1 or 2 since 2012. Framework 57 would also grant authority to the Regional Administrator to modify future trimester TAC allocations under specific circumstances to help provide an opportunity to achieve the catch targets.

    Revised Atlantic Halibut AM

    Framework 57 would expand the existing zero-possession AM to all vessels issued a Federal permit, excluding vessels issued only a Federal multispecies charter/party permit, an Atlantic highly migratory species angling permit, and/or an Atlantic highly migratory species charter/headboat permit.

    When the total ACL is exceeded, groundfish vessels are also subject to several gear-restricted areas. Framework 57 would also revise the existing Atlantic halibut AM gear-restricted areas using updated information. The modifications would allow groundfish trawl and fixed gear vessels additional flexibility while continuing to reduce catch of halibut when the AMs are triggered.

    Revised Southern Windowpane Flounder AM for Non-Groundfish Vessels

    The proposed measure would scale the size of the southern windowpane AM area based on the condition of the stock and catch in the year after the overage for non-groundfish fisheries, but would not alter the AM trigger. Based on an updated evaluation of the existing AM areas, Framework 57 would allow reduced AM areas and seasons for non-groundfish trawl vessels using a 5-inch mesh or greater cod end.

    Atlantic Scallop Fishery AM Policy

    For fishing year 2018, the AM for the scallop fishery would only be triggered if the overall ACL for the stock is exceeded and the scallop fishery exceeds its sub-ACL. This change would be effective for 1 year, and is identical to the scallop fishery's AM trigger for GB yellowtail flounder and northern windowpane flounder.

    Recreational Fishery Measures

    Framework 57 would provide authority to the Regional Administrator to adjust recreational measures for GB cod in 2018 and 2019. This authority is intended to address recent increases in the recreational fishery catch of GB cod and to ensure the fishery does not exceed its catch target. Potential changes to the GB cod recreational measures would be proposed in a separate rule and the economic impacts on party/charter small entities would be analyzed under that action.

    Overall, the measures proposed in Framework 57 are expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities. This action would provide additional fishing opportunities, enhanced operational flexibility, and increased profits to fishermen in the groundfish, scallop, summer flounder, scup, and skate fisheries.

    This action is not expected to have a significant or substantial effect on small entities. The effects on the regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to be positive in comparison with the no action alternative, which would result in lower revenues and profits than under the proposed action. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profits for any small entities relative to taking no action. Thus, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.14, revise paragraphs (k)(18) and (20) to read as follows:
    § 648.14 Prohibitions.

    (k) * * *

    (18) Trimester TAC AM. It is unlawful for any person, including any owner or operator of a vessel issued a valid Federal NE multispecies permit or letter under § 648.4(a)(1)(i), unless otherwise specified in § 648.17, to fish for, harvest, possess, or land regulated species or ocean pout in or from the closed areas specified in § 648.82(n)(2)(ii) once such areas are closed pursuant to § 648.82(n)(2)(i).

    (20) AMs for both stocks of windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic halibut, and Atlantic wolffish. It is unlawful for any person, including any owner or operator of a vessel issued a valid Federal NE multispecies permit or letter under § 648.4(a)(1)(i), unless otherwise specified in § 648.17, to fail to comply with the restrictions on fishing and gear specified in § 648.90(a)(5)(i)(D) through (H).

    3. In § 648.82, revise paragraph (n)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.82 Effort-control program for NE multispecies limited access vessels.

    (n) * * *

    (2)* * *

    (i) Trimester TACs— (A) Trimester TAC distribution. With the exception of SNE/MA winter flounder, any sub-ACLs specified for common pool vessels pursuant to § 648.90(a)(4) shall be apportioned into 4-month trimesters, beginning at the start of the fishing year (i.e., Trimester 1: May 1-August 31; Trimester 2: September 1-December 31; Trimester 3: January 1-April 30), as follows:

    Portion of Common Pool Sub-ACLs Apportioned to Each Stock for Each Trimester Stock Trimester 1
  • (percent)
  • Trimester 2
  • (percent)
  • Trimester 3
  • (percent)
  • GB cod 28 34 38 GOM cod 49 33 18 GB haddock 27 33 40 GOM haddock 27 26 47 GB yellowtail flounder 19 30 51 SNE/MA yellowtail flounder 21 28 51 CC/GOM yellowtail flounder 57 26 17 American plaice 74 8 18 Witch flounder 55 20 25 GB winter flounder 8 24 68 GOM winter flounder 37 38 25 Redfish 25 31 44 White hake 38 31 31 Pollock 28 35 37

    (B) Trimester TAC adjustment. For stocks that have experienced early closures (e.g., Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 closures), the Regional Administrator may use the biennial adjustment process specified in § 648.90 to revise the distribution of trimester TACs specified in paragraph (n)(2)(i)(A) of this section. Future adjustments to the distribution of trimester TACs shall use catch data for the most recent 5-year period prior to the reevaluation of trimester TACs.

    4. In § 648.89, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

    (g) Regional Administrator authority for 2018 and 2019 Georges Bank cod recreational measures. For the 2018 or 2019 fishing years, the Regional Administrator, after consultation with the NEFMC, may adjust recreational measures for Georges Bank cod to prevent the recreational fishery from exceeding the annual catch target of 138 mt. Appropriate measures, including adjustments to fishing seasons, minimum fish sizes, or possession limits, may be implemented in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, with the final measures published in the Federal Register prior to the start of the fishing year when possible. Separate measures may be implemented for the private and charter/party components of the recreational fishery. Measures in place in fishing year 2019 will be in effect beginning in fishing year 2020, and will remain in effect until they are changed by a Framework Adjustment or Amendment to the FMP, or through an emergency action.

    5. Section 648.90 is amended by: a. Removing reserved paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E); b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(D)(1) through (4) as paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(E) through (H); c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(E) through (H); and d. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iv)(C).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 648.90 NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system.

    (a) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) Windowpane flounder. Unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(E)(5) and (6) of this section, if NMFS determines the total catch exceeds the overall ACL for either stock of windowpane flounder, as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E), by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, up to 20 percent greater than the overall ACL, the applicable small AM area for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E) of this section, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, the applicable large AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E), consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. Vessels fishing with trawl gear in these areas may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6).

    (1) If an overage of the overall ACL for southern windowpane flounder is a result of an overage of the sub-ACL allocated to the multispecies fishery pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(H)(2) of this section, the applicable AM area(s) shall be in effect year-round for any limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel fishing on a NE multispecies DAS or sector trip.

    (2) If an overage of the overall ACL for southern windowpane flounder is a result of an overage of the sub-ACL allocated to exempted fisheries pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(F) of this section, the applicable AM area(s) shall be in effect for any trawl vessel fishing with a codend mesh size of greater than or equal to 5 inches (12.7 cm) in other, non-specified sub-components of the fishery, including, but not limited to, exempted fisheries that occur in Federal waters and fisheries harvesting exempted species specified in § 648.80(b)(3). If triggered, the Southern Windowpane Flounder Small AM Area will be implemented from September 1 through April 30; the Southern Windowpane Flounder Large AM Areas 2 and 3 will be implemented year-round.

    (3) If an overage of the overall ACL for southern windowpane flounder is a result of overages of both the multispecies fishery and exempted fishery sub-ACLs, the applicable AM area(s) shall be in effect for both the multispecies fishery and exempted fisheries as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E). If a sub-ACL for either stock of windowpane flounder is allocated to another fishery, consistent with the process specified at paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and there are AMs for that fishery, the multispecies fishery AM shall only be implemented if the sub-ACL allocated to the multispecies fishery is exceeded (i.e., the sector and common pool catch for a particular stock, including the common pool's share of any overage of the overall ACL caused by excessive catch by other sub-components of the fishery pursuant to paragraph (a)(5) of this section exceeds the common pool sub-ACL) and the overall ACL is also exceeded.

    (4) Windowpane AM Areas. The AM areas defined below are bounded by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted.

    Point N latitude W longitude Northern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Small AM Area 1 41°10′ 67°40′ 2 41°10′ 67°20′ 3 41°00′ 67°20′ 4 41°00′ 67°00′ 5 40°50′ 67°00′ 6 40°50′ 67°40′ 1 41°10′ 67°40′ Northern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Large AM Area 1 42°10′ 67°40′ 2 42°10′ 67°20′ 3 41°00′ 67°20′ 4 41°00′ 67°00′ 5 40°50′ 67°00′ 6 40°50′ 67°40′ 1 42°10′ 67°40′ Southern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Small AM Area 1 41°10′ 71°30′ 2 41°10′ 71°20′ 3 40°50′ 71°20′ 4 40°50′ 71°30′ 1 41°10′ 71°30′ Southern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Large AM Area 1 1 41°10′ 71°50′ 2 41°10′ 71°10′ 3 41°00′ 71°10′ 4 41°00′ 71°20′ 5 40°50′ 71°20′ 6 40°50′ 71°50′ 1 41°10′ 71°50′ Southern Windowpane Flounder and Ocean Pout Large AM Area 2 1 (1) 73°30′ 2 40°30′ 73°30′ 3 40°30′ 73°50′ 4 40°20′ 73°50′ 5 40°20′ (2) 6 (3) 73°58.5′ 7 (4) 73°58.5′ 8 5 40°32.6′ 5 73°56.4′ 1 (1) 73°30′ Southern Windowpane Flounder Large AM Area 3 1 41°10′ 71°30′ 2 41°10′ 71°10′ 3 41°00′ 71°10′ 4 41°00′ 71°20′ 5 40°50′ 71°20′ 6 40°50′ 71°30′ 1 41°10′ 71°30′ 1 The southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY, at 73°30′ W longitude. 2 The easternmost coastline of NJ at 40°20′ N latitude, then northward along the NJ coastline to Point 6. 3 The northernmost coastline of NJ at 73°58.5′ W longitude. 4 The southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY, at 73°58.5′ W longitude. 5 The approximate location of the southwest corner of the Rockaway Peninsula, Queens, NY, then eastward along the southernmost coastline of Long Island, NY (excluding South Oyster Bay), back to Point 1.

    (5) Reducing the size of an AM. If the overall northern or southern windowpane flounder ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent and NMFS determines that the stock is rebuilt, and the biomass criterion, as defined by the Council, is greater than the most recent fishing year's catch, then only the small AM may be implemented as described in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D)(1) of this section, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. This provision applies to a limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel fishing on a NE multispecies DAS or sector trip, and to all vessels fishing with trawl gear with a codend mesh size equal to or greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) in other, non-specified sub-components of the fishery, including, but not limited to, exempted fisheries that occur in Federal waters and fisheries harvesting exempted species specified in § 648.80(b)(3).

    (6) Reducing the duration of an AM. If the northern or southern windowpane flounder AM is implemented in the third fishing year following the year of an overage, as described in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(D) of this section, and NMFS subsequently determines that the applicable windowpane flounder ACL was not exceeded by any amount the year immediately after which the overage occurred (i.e., the second year), on or after September 1 the AM can be removed once year-end data are complete. This reduced duration does not apply if NMFS determines during year 3 that a year 3 overage of the applicable windowpane flounder ACL has occurred. This provision applies to a limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel fishing on a NE multispecies DAS or sector trip, and to all vessels fishing with trawl gear with a codend mesh size equal to or greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) in other, non-specified sub-components of the fishery, including, but not limited to, exempted fisheries that occur in Federal waters and fisheries harvesting exempted species specified in § 648.80(b)(3).

    (F) Atlantic halibut. If NMFS determines the overall ACL for Atlantic halibut is exceeded, as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(F), by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, the applicable AM areas shall be implemented and any vessel issued a Federal permit for any fishery management plan may not fish for, possess, or land Atlantic halibut for the fishing year in which the AM is implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(F) of this section. Vessels issued only a charter/party permit, and/or an Atlantic highly migratory species angling permit, and/or an Atlantic highly migratory species charter/headboat permit are exempt from the AM. A vessel issued a permit that is not exempt from the AM in addition to an exempt permit may not fish for, possess, or land Atlantic halibut for the fishing year in which the AM is implemented. If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, the applicable AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(F) of this section, and the Council shall revisit the AM in a future action. The AM areas defined below are bounded by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted. Any vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing with trawl gear in the Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6); except that selective trawl gear is not required in the portion of the Trawl Gear AM Area between 41 degrees 40 minutes and 42 degrees from April 1 through July 31. When in effect, a limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel with gillnet gear may not fish or be in the Atlantic Halibut Fixed Gear AM Area from March 1 through October 31, unless transiting with its gear stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, or such gear was approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). If a sub-ACL for Atlantic halibut is allocated to another fishery, consistent with the process specified at § 648.90(a)(4), and there are AMs for that fishery, the multispecies fishery AM shall only be implemented if the sub-ACL allocated to the multispecies fishery is exceeded (i.e., the sector and common pool catch for a particular stock, including the common pool's share of any overage of the overall ACL caused by excessive catch by other sub-components of the fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(5), exceeds the common pool sub-ACL) and the overall ACL is also exceeded.

    Atlantic Halibut Trawl Gear AM Area Point N latitude W longitude 1 42°00′ 69°20′ 2 42°00′ 68°20′ 3 41°30′ 68°20′ 4 41°30′ 69°20′ Atlantic Halibut Gillnet Gear AM Area Point N latitude W longitude 1 43°10′ 69°40′ 2 43°10′ 69°30′ 3 43°00′ 69°30′ 4 43°00′ 69°40′

    (G) Atlantic wolffish. If NMFS determines the overall ACL for Atlantic wolffish is exceeded, as described in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(G), by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer, the applicable AM areas shall be implemented, as specified in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(G). If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, the applicable AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in this paragraph (a)(5)(i)(G), and the Council shall revisit the AM in a future action. The AM areas defined below are bounded by the following coordinates, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted. Any vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing with trawl gear in the Atlantic Wolffish Trawl Gear AM Area may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). When in effect, a limited access NE multispecies permitted vessel with gillnet or longline gear may not fish or be in the Atlantic Wolffish Fixed Gear AM Areas, unless transiting with its gear stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, or such gear was approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6). If a sub-ACL for Atlantic wolffish is allocated to another fishery, consistent with the process specified at § 648.90(a)(4), and AMs are developed for that fishery, the multispecies fishery AM shall only be implemented if the sub-ACL allocated to the multispecies fishery is exceeded (i.e., the sector and common pool catch for a particular stock, including the common pool's share of any overage of the overall ACL caused by excessive catch by other sub-components of the fishery pursuant to § 648.90(a)(5), exceeds the common pool sub-ACL) and the overall ACL is also exceeded.

    Atlantic Wolffish Trawl Gear AM Area Point N latitude W longitude 1 42°30′ 70°30′ 2 42°30′ 70°15′ 3 42°15′ 70°15′ 4 42°15′ 70°10′ 5 42°10′ 70°10′ 6 42°10′ 70°20′ 7 42°20′ 70°20′ 8 42°20′ 70°30′ Atlantic Wolffish Fixed Gear AM Area 1 Point N latitude W longitude 1 41°40′ 69°40′ 2 41°40′ 69°30′ 3 41°30′ 69°30′ 4 41°30′ 69°40′ Atlantic Wolffish Fixed Gear AM Area 2 Point N latitude W longitude 1 42°30′ 70°20′ 2 42°30′ 70°15′ 3 42°20′ 70°15′ 4 42°20′ 70°20′

    (H) Ocean pout. Unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(E)(5) and (6) of this section, if NMFS determines the total catch exceeds the overall ACL for ocean pout, as described in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E) of this section, by any amount greater than the management uncertainty buffer up to 20 percent greater than the overall ACL, the applicable small AM area for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E) of this section, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. If the overall ACL is exceeded by more than 20 percent, large AM area(s) for the stock shall be implemented, as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E) of this section, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The AM areas for ocean pout are defined in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(E)(4) of this section, connected in the order listed by rhumb lines, unless otherwise noted. Vessels fishing with trawl gear in these areas may only use a haddock separator trawl, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A); a Ruhle trawl, as specified in § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)(3); a rope separator trawl, as specified in § 648.84(e); or any other gear approved consistent with the process defined in § 648.85(b)(6).

    (iv) * * *

    (C) 2018 fishing year threshold for implementing the Atlantic sea scallop fishery AM for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. For the 2018 fishing year, if the scallop fishery catch exceeds its SNE/MA yellowtail flounder sub-ACL specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and total catch exceeds the overall ACL for that stock, then the applicable scallop fishery AM will take effect, as specified in § 648.64 of the Atlantic sea scallop regulations. Beginning in fishing year 2019, the threshold for implementing scallop fishery AMs for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder listed in paragraph (a)(5)(iv)(A) of this section will be in effect.

    [FR Doc. 2018-05755 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 180201108-8261-01] RIN 0648-BH55 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Fishing Year 2018 Recreational Management Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes to set 2018 recreational management measures for Gulf of Maine cod and haddock and Georges Bank cod. This action is necessary to respond to updated catch and other scientific information. The proposed measures are intended to ensure the recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed, its fishing year 2018 catch limits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0040, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0040

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Fishing Year 2018 Groundfish Recreational Measures.”

    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, etc.), 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).

    Copies of the analyses supporting this rulemaking, including the Framework Adjustment 57 environmental assessment (EA) prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council, and draft supplemental EA to Framework Adjustment 57 prepared by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center, are available from: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The supporting documents are also accessible via the internet at: http://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies or http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Keiley, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: 978-281-9116; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents 1. Proposed Gulf of Maine Recreational Management Measures for Fishing Year 2018 2. Fishing Year 2018 Georges Bank Cod Recreational Management Measures 3. Regulatory Corrections Background Proposed Gulf of Maine Recreational Management Measures for Fishing Year 2018

    The recreational fishery for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and haddock is managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP sets sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) for the recreational fishery for each fishing year for GOM cod and haddock. These sub-ACLs are a portion of the overall catch limit for each stock. The multispecies fishery opens on May 1 each year and runs through April 30 of the following calendar year. The FMP also includes recreational accountability measures (AM) to prevent the recreational sub-ACLs from being exceeded, or to correct the cause of an overage if one occurs.

    The proactive AM provision in the FMP requires the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, to develop recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year to ensure that the recreational sub-ACL is achieved, but not exceeded. The provisions authorizing this action can be found in § 648.89(f)(3) of the FMP's implementing regulations.

    For fishing year 2017, the recreational sub-ACL for GOM cod remained the same as 2016, and the recreational sub-ACL for GOM haddock increased 25 percent. In order to reduce cod catch and prevent subsequent overages, and because haddock management measures affect cod catch, both cod and haddock management measures were more conservative in 2017. This is because in 2016 cod catch increased more than predicted and the recreational sub-ACL was exceeded by 92 percent. Preliminary estimates of 2017 recreational GOM cod catch exceed the sub-ACL by 55 percent despite the more conservative management measures. Estimates of 2017 GOM haddock catch are less than half of the sub-ACL.

    According to the 2017 stock assessments, the GOM cod and haddock stocks are increasing, although cod remains overfished and subject to a rebuilding plan. Framework Adjustment 57, a concurrent action, proposes 2018 ACLs based on the updated assessments. For 2018, the proposed haddock sub-ACL increases by 290 percent, from 1,160 mt to 3,358 mt, and the proposed cod sub-ACL increases from 157 to 220 mt. The recreational sub-ACLs are based on a fixed percentage of the total commercial ACLs. This action sets recreational management measures designed to achieve, but not exceed the recreational sub-ACLs.

    As specified in Table 1, compared to the 2017 catch, the 2018 sub-ACLs would allow for a 78-percent increase in haddock catch, but would require an 11-percent reduction in cod catch. Status quo measures are projected to result in cod catch above the sub-ACL, and haddock catch below the sub-ACL. Because 2018 catch of cod under the status quo measures is projected to be above the cod sub-ACL, we are required, in consultation with the Council, to revise the GOM recreational measures for fishing year 2018.

    Table 1—Fishing Year 2017 Catch Compared to Fishing Year 2017 and 2018 Sub-ACLs GOM stock Estimated
  • 2017 catch
  • (mt)
  • 2017 sub-ACL
  • (mt)
  • Percent of
  • FY 2017
  • sub-ACL
  • caught
  • 2018 sub-ACL
  • (mt)
  • Change in 2017
  • catch
  • to reach
  • 2018 sub-ACL
  • (percent)
  • Cod 244 157 155 220 −11 Haddock 740 1,160 64 3,358 78
    Proposed Measures

    We consulted with the Council and its Recreational Advisory Panel (RAP) in January 2018. The RAP and Council recommended status quo measures for GOM cod and haddock. Status quo measures are projected to constrain the catch of cod to the sub-ACL only if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prohibits recreational anglers in state waters from retaining GOM cod. For-hire vessels in Massachusetts are prohibited from fishing for cod. Alternatively, the Council recommended implementing different measures for the private angler and for-hire components of the fishery if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not prohibit the possession of cod. Recent catch information suggests the for-hire fleet has been able to avoid cod bycatch when fishing for haddock more effectively than private anglers. As a result, the Council determined separate measures for each fleet would more effectively achieve the necessary cod reductions. The addition of a May closure for private anglers, combined with a reduction of the for-hire haddock possession limit is projected to keep cod catch below the sub-ACL.

    A peer-reviewed bioeconomic model, developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, was used to estimate 2018 recreational GOM cod and haddock mortality under various combinations of minimum sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons. Even when incorporating zero possession of GOM cod in Federal waters, but without an accompanying prohibition of recreational possession of cod by Massachusetts private anglers, the model estimates that the status quo measures for GOM haddock are not expected to constrain the bycatch of cod to the 2018 catch limit. The model estimates that the status quo haddock measures would result in cod catch of 226 mt and haddock catch of 920 mt (see Table 3), which would be 102 percent of the 220 mt cod sub-ACL and 27 percent of the haddock sub-ACL. If Massachusetts prohibits private angler possession of cod, status quo Federal measures for cod and haddock are expected to constrain cod catch to the sub-ACL. Predicted cod catch, under this scenario, is 193 mt. The Council's recommended, but non-preferred alternative does not rely on modifications to Massachusetts' recreational measures, but implements a new closure for the month of May for private anglers, and reduces the for-hire possession limit from 12 to 10 fish. Under this alternative cod catch is projected to be 198 mt.

    Table 2 summarizes the status quo measures and the measures being proposed for comment, along with the model's estimates of catch and the likelihood of catch remaining below the sub-ACLs. At the time the model was run and presented to the Council for consideration, the preliminary GOM cod sub-ACL was estimated to be 200 mt, and the probabilities are based on this amount. We have since determined that the fishing year 2018 GOM cod sub-ACL will be 220 mt. The increased quota does not change the predicted cod catch under the different measures, but the probability that cod catch will be below the sub-ACL increases. Projected catch associated with the status quo measures still exceeds the updated sub-ACL, and the proposed alternatives do not change. We intend to update the model probabilities using the higher, updated sub-ACL and publish those results with the final rule for this action.

    EP22MR18.006

    The bioeconomic model's predicted probabilities that catch will remain at or below the sub-ACLs are informative. The model uses preliminary data from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). MRIP data are updated throughout the fishing year as new data arrives in different waves and older data is updated. Incorporation of new waves, or updates, may result in changes. The MRIP data are estimates and highly variable from year to year. This combination of factors makes it difficult to produce consistent predictions and to assess the underlying reasons for the discrepancies between the model's predicted catch and estimates of actual catch. The model has underestimated recreational catch historically, but its predictive power has been increasing in recent years. Recent measures have resulted in catch close to the sub-ACLs; however, a number of overages have still occurred. Increasing the probability of maintaining catch under the sub-ACL provides more confidence that the measures may keep catch within the sub-ACL despite this data uncertainty.

    2. Fishing Year 2018 Georges Bank Cod Recreational Management Measures

    As part of Framework 57 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the Council recommended to give the Regional Administrator authority to adjust the GB cod recreational management measures for fishing years 2018 and 2019. Framework 57 is intended to be implemented for the 2018 fishing year. Concurrent to the Framework 57 rulemaking, which is expected in March 2018, we are considering whether adjustments to GB cod recreational measures are necessary, should the framework be approved. This action was precipitated by an unusually high recreational catch estimate of GB cod in 2016 that contributed to an overage of the total ACL and acceptable biological catch. Unlike GOM cod and haddock, there is no recreational sub-ACL for GB cod and no accountability measures for the recreational fishery when an overage occurs. The Council did not consider a recreational sub-ACL in this action because of a lack of time to consider this issue. However, the Council recommended a catch target for us to use when considering adjustments to GB cod measures. The catch target is based on the most recent 5 year (calendar years 2012-2016) average recreational catch (138 mt). The Council expects that measures designed to achieve this target amount for the recreational fishery will help the overall fishery attain, but not exceed, its overall ACL. According to the 2017 updated assessment the stock remains in poor condition, but the GB cod stock biomass is increasing and supports an increase in the ACL consistent with this change. Based on the updated assessment the proposed 2018 overall ACL is increasing 139 percent compared to 2017.

    With the exception of 2013, recreational catch of Georges Bank cod has been increasing (see Table 4). Recreational management measures for this stock have not been modified since 2010. For these reasons, we expect the increasing trend in recreational catch to continue.

    EP22MR18.007

    Since the Council meeting in December 2018, preliminary 2017 wave 6 MRIP data were released. Wave 6 (November-December) encompass the season for which GB recreational cod catches are historically the highest. The updated projection for fishing year 2017 recreational catch of GB cod is 120 percent lower than what was previously estimated and presented to the RAP and Council. The updated fishing year 2017 estimate is 51 mt. This reduction is not consistent with the increasing trend in catch that has been observed since 2013. Given the inherent variability in the MRIP data, many recreational fisheries use a moving average when considering measures for subsequent years. Incorporating the updated 2017 catch estimate, the 3-year average (fishing years 2015-2017) recreational catch is 196 mt. This average is greater than the catch target, and recreational catch in 2015 and 2016 was greater than the catch target.

    Proposed Measures

    Due to the potential increase in cod encounters by recreational anglers, and the poor stock condition, the Council is recommending measures to limit the potential for extreme catch amounts of cod and facilitate enforcement of the measures. To meet this goal, the Council recommended setting a possession limit for the for-hire fleet. Currently private anglers have a 10-fish possession limit, and for-hire vessels have no limit. The proposed change would harmonize the private and for-hire restrictions while meeting capping potential cod interactions on a trip-by-trip basis. The Council also proposed an increase in the minimum size limit from 22 to 24 inches (55.88 to 60.96 cm). The proposed minimum size is consistent with the minimum size for recreationally caught cod in the GOM when that fishery is open. Also, a uniform size limit can help avoid confusion and aid enforcement. In 2016, approximately 40 percent of the cod landings were less than 24 inches. Thus, an increase to the minimum size we expect would reduce cod mortality relative to 2016 catch.

    Unlike for the GOM recreational fishery, there is no model available to evaluate the probability of catch amounts for the Georges Bank management changes. However, past data shows that setting a possession limit and increasing the minimum size are effective techniques for reducing recreational catch. A possession limit will cap the amount of catch per trip and help meet the goal of limiting extreme events. Uniform size limits also will limit mortality as well as assist enforcement. The proposed fishing year 2018 recreational measures for Georges Bank cod are specified in Table 5, along with information on fishing year 2017 measures for comparison.

    EP22MR18.008

    We are seeking comments on the Council's trip and size limits in relation to preventing extreme recreational catches of GB cod, assisting enforcement, and avoiding the potential negative impacts on the commercial groundfish fishery from recreational catch that contributes to overall ACL overages. In particular, we are interested in the measures in relation to achieving the catch target and avoiding overages of the overall ACL in light of the new MRIP data and estimated 2017 recreational GB cod catch. Because of the variability in MRIP data, and the lack of a model to evaluate the effect of the proposed measures, it is difficult to determine the probability that measures may constrain harvest to the catch target. Additionally, because the recreational fishery does not receive an allocation for GB cod, there are no AMs for recreational vessels in the event the catch target or the overall ACL is exceeded. For 2018, the commercial groundfish fishery is required to payback the 2016 fishing year ACL overage.

    3. Regulatory Corrections

    This action also proposes several corrections to the regulatory text to improve clarity and consistency of the recreational regulations. The corrections in this action are proposed under the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which states that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that FMPs are implemented in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    In § 648.89(c), we have adopted a new approach to present recreational possession limits to simplify and improve clarity of the regulations. Rather than stating possession limits and seasons exclusively through text, a table would be used. Explanatory information (e.g., filleting exemption from minimum size) would still be in text form.

    In § 648.14(k)(16), we propose to add the possession prohibitions for ocean pout and windowpane flounder by the recreational fishery. Possession, by the recreational fishery, of ocean pout and windowpane flounder is already prohibited. We are adding text to the prohibitions section to improve consistency and clarity of the regulations.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of 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 (E.O.) 12866. Thus, this rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities, and also determines ways to minimize these impacts. The IRFA incorporates sections of the preamble (SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) and analyses supporting this rulemaking, including the Framework Adjustment 57 EA and the draft supplemental EA to Framework 57. A summary of the analysis follows (see ADDRESSES).

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

    Because the recreational measures currently in place for GOM cod and haddock are not expected to constrain fishing year 2018 catch to the cod sub-ACL, this action proposes new measures, as required by the FMP, to ensure that the previously established sub-ACL is not exceeded. This action also proposes new recreational measures for Georges Bank cod. These measures have been designed to achieve the catch target set in Framework 57.

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

    The FMP allows the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the Council, to modify the GOM recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year to ensure that the sub-ACL is achieved, but not exceeded. The provisions authorizing this action can be found in § 648.89(f)(3) of the FMP's implementing regulations. One of the intended effects of this action is to reduce recreational catch of GOM cod. This action is necessary to ensure that the fishing year 2018 recreational GOM cod catch limit is not exceeded.

    Framework 57, a concurrent action, proposes to give the Regional Administrator authority to change the Georges Bank cod recreational management measures for fishing years 2018 and 2019. Framework 57 also proposed a catch target of 138 mt. Limiting catch to this target amount is expected to help ensure that the overall ACL for this stock is not exceeded. Management measures proposed in this action are designed to achieve, but not exceed this target.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business (NAICS code 11411) as a firm with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million for Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance purposes only. A small for-hire recreational fishing business is defined as a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million (NAICS code 487210). Having different size standards for different types of fishing activities creates difficulties in categorizing businesses that participate in multiple fishing related activities. For purposes of this assessment, business entities have been classified into the SBA-defined categories based on which activity produced the highest percentage of average annual gross revenues from 2014-2016. This is the most recent 3-year period for which data are available. Ownership data in the Northeast permit database identify all individuals who own fishing vessels. Using this information, vessels can be grouped together according to common owners. The resulting groupings were treated as a fishing business for purposes of this analysis. Revenues summed across all vessels in a group and the activities that generate those revenues form the basis for determining whether the entity is a large or small business.

    The proposed regulations include closed seasons in addition to possession limits and size limits. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all three types of recreational fishing restrictions may directly affect for-hire businesses. According to the FMP, it is unlawful for the owner or operator of a charter or party boat issued a valid multispecies permit, when the boat is carrying passengers for hire, to:

    • Possess cod or haddock in excess of the possession limits.

    • Fish with gear in violation of the regulations.

    • Fail to comply with the applicable restrictions if transiting the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod or haddock on board that was caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area.

    As the for-hire owner and operator can be prosecuted under the law for violations of the proposed regulations, for-hire business entities are considered directly affected in this analysis. Private recreational anglers are not considered “entities” under the RFA, and thus economic impacts on anglers are not discussed here.

    For-hire fishing businesses are required to obtain a Federal charter/party multispecies fishing permit in order to carry passengers to catch cod or haddock. Thus, the affected businesses entities of concern are businesses that hold Federal multispecies for-hire fishing permits. While all business entities that hold for-hire permits could be affected by changes in recreational fishing restrictions, not all businesses that hold for-hire permits actively participate in a given year. The regulations affect the group of business entities who actively participate, i.e., land fish. Latent fishing power (in the form of unfished permits) has the potential to alter the impacts on a fishery. However, it is not possible to predict how many of these latent business entities will or will not participate in this fishery in fishing year 2018.

    The Northeast Federal landings database (i.e., vessel trip report data) indicates that a total of 661 vessels held a multispecies for-hire fishing permit in 2016. This is the most recent full year of available data. Of the 661 for-hire permitted vessels, only 164 actively participated in the for-hire Atlantic cod and haddock fishery in fishing year 2016 (i.e., reported catch of cod or haddock).

    Using vessel ownership information developed from Northeast Federal permit data and Northeast vessel trip report data, it was determined that the 164 actively participating for-hire vessels are owned by 151 unique fishing business entities. The vast majority of the 151 fishing businesses were solely engaged in for-hire fishing, but some also earned revenue from shellfish and/or finfish fishing. For all but 23 of these fishing businesses, the revenue from for-hire fishing was greater than the revenue from shellfishing and the revenue from finfish fishing.

    According to the SBA size standards, small for-hire businesses are defined as firms with annual receipts of up to $7.5 million. Small commercial finfishing or shellfishing businesses are defined as firms with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from the most recent 3 years (2014-2016) indicate that none of the 151 fishing business entities had annual receipts of more than $2.8 million from all of their fishing activities (for-hire, shellfish, and finfish). Therefore, all of the affected fishing business entities are considered “small” based on the SBA size standards. As a result, this action would not disproportionately affect small versus large for-hire business entities.

    Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule

    There are no proposed reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

    Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule

    The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

    Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    There are three options that were presented to the Council [(Framework 57 EA and draft Supplemental EA, see ADDRESSES) that would accomplish the objectives, but are not being proposed. Options 5 and 6 were only discussed by the Council, and while they would achieve the objective, were not selected. The options presented, but not proposed, were rejected either because they did not achieve the required cod sub-ACL, or they had significant negative impacts on the for-hire fleet (e.g., Option 2, a May closure). The options proposed in this action minimize, to the extent practical, the impact on small entities.

    Table 4—Projected Fishing Year 2018 Recreational Cod and Haddock Catch Under Alternative Measures EP22MR18.009 List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: March 16, 2018 Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.14, add paragraphs (k)(16)(viii) and (ix) to read as follows:
    § 648.14 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

    (k) * * *

    (16) * * *

    (viii) Ocean pout. If fishing under the recreational or charter/party regulations, possess ocean pout.

    (ix) Windowpane flounder. If fishing under the recreational or charter/party regulations, possess windowpane flounder.

    3. In § 648.89, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 648.89 Recreational and charter/party vessel restrictions.

    (b) Recreational minimum fish sizes—(1) Minimum fish sizes. Unless further restricted under this section, persons aboard charter or party boats permitted under this part and not fishing under the NE multispecies DAS program or under the restrictions and conditions of an approved sector operations plan, and private recreational fishing vessels in or possessing fish from the EEZ, may not possess fish smaller than the minimum fish sizes, measured in total length, as follows:

    Species Minimum size Inches cm Cod: Inside GOM Regulated Mesh Area 1 24 61.0 Outside GOM Regulated Mesh Area 1 24 61.0 Haddock: Inside GOM Regulated Mesh Area 1 17 43.2 Outside GOM Regulated Mesh Area 1 18 45.7 Pollock 19 48.3 Witch Flounder (gray sole) 14 35.6 Yellowtail Flounder 13 33.0 American Plaice (dab) 14 35.6 Atlantic Halibut 41 104.1 Winter Flounder (black back) 12 30.5 Redfish 9 22.9 1 GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a).

    (2) Exceptions—(i) Fillet size. Vessels may possess fillets less than the minimum size specified, if the fillets are taken from legal-sized fish and are not offered or intended for sale, trade or barter.

    (ii) Transiting. Vessels in possession of cod or haddock caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(a)(1) may transit this area with cod and haddock that meet the minimum size specified for fish caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area specified in § 648.80(b)(1), provided all bait and hooks are removed from fishing rods, and any cod and haddock on board has been gutted and stored.

    (3) Fish fillets, or parts of fish, must have at least 2 square inches (5.1 square cm) of skin on while possessed on board a vessel and at the time of landing in order to meet minimum size requirements. The skin must be contiguous and must allow ready identification of the fish species.

    (c) Possession Restrictions—(1) Private recreational vessels. Persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels in or possessing fish from the EEZ, during the open season listed in the column titled “Open Season” in Table 1 to paragraph (c), may not possess more fish than the amount listed in the column titled “Possession Limit” in Table 1 to paragraph (c).

    (i) Closed season. Persons aboard private recreational fishing vessels may not possess species, as specified in the column titled “Species” in Table 1 to paragraph (c), in or from the EEZ during that species closed season as specified in the column titled “Closed Season” in Table 1 to paragraph (c).

    Table 1 to Paragraph (c) Species Open season Possession limit Closed season GB Cod All Year 10 N/A. GOM Cod CLOSED No retention All Year. GB Haddock All Year Unlimited N/A. GOM Haddock June 1-September 16; November 1-February 28 (or 29); April 15-30 12 September 17-October 31; March 1-April 14; May 1-31. GB Yellowtail Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. American Plaice All Year Unlimited N/A. Witch Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. GB Winter Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. GOM Winter Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. SNE/MA Winter Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. Redfish All Year Unlimited N/A. White Hake All Year Unlimited N/A. Pollock All Year Unlimited N/A. N Windowpane Flounder CLOSED No retention All Year. S Windowpane Flounder CLOSED No retention All Year. Ocean Pout CLOSED No retention All Year. Atlantic Halibut See paragraph (c)(3) Atlantic Wolffish CLOSED No retention All Year.

    (2) Charter or Party Boats. Persons aboard party or charter boats in or possessing fish from the EEZ, during the open season listed in the column titled “Open Season” in Table 2 to paragraph (c), may not possess more fish than the amount listed in the column titled “Possession Limit” in Table 2 to paragraph (c).

    Table 2 to Paragraph (c) Species Open season Possession limit Closed season GB Cod All Year 10 N/A. GOM Cod CLOSED No retention All Year. GB Haddock All Year Unlimited N/A. GOM Haddock May 1-September 16; November 1-February 28 (or 29); April 15-30 10 September 17-October 31; March 1-April 14. GB Yellowtail Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. American Plaice All Year Unlimited N/A. Witch Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. GB Winter Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. GOM Winter Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. SNE/MA Winter Flounder All Year Unlimited N/A. Redfish All Year Unlimited N/A. White Hake All Year Unlimited N/A. Pollock All Year Unlimited N/A. N Windowpane Flounder CLOSED No retention All Year. S Windowpane Flounder CLOSED No retention All Year. Ocean Pout CLOSED No retention All Year. Atlantic Halibut See Paragraph (c)(3) Atlantic Wolffish CLOSED No retention All Year.

    (3) Atlantic halibut. Vessels permitted under this part, and recreational fishing vessels fishing in the EEZ, may not possess more than one Atlantic halibut on board the vessel.

    (4) Accounting of daily trip limit. For the purposes of determining the per day trip limit for cod and haddock for private recreational fishing vessels and charter or party boats, any trip in excess of 15 hours and covering 2 consecutive calendar days will be considered more than 1 day. Similarly, any trip in excess of 39 hours and covering 3 consecutive calendar days will be considered more than 2 days and, so on, in a similar fashion.

    (5) Fillet conversion. For purposes of counting fish for cod and haddock for private recreational fishing vessels and charter or party boats, if fish are filleted, fillets will be converted to whole fish by dividing the number of fillets by two. If fish are filleted into a single (butterfly) fillet, such fillet shall be deemed to be from one whole fish.

    (6) Application of possession limit. Cod and haddock harvested by recreational fishing vessels in or from the EEZ with more than one person aboard may be pooled in one or more containers. If cod or haddock have been pooled into one or more containers, compliance with the possession limit will be determined by dividing the number of fish on board by the number of persons on board. If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have been committed by the owner or operator of the vessel.

    (7) Storage. Cod and haddock must be stored so as to be readily available for inspection.

    [FR Doc. 2018-05811 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 56 Thursday, March 22, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Rogue-Umpqua Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rogue-Umpqua Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Roseburg, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following website: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcwWAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 4, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Umpqua National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, Diamond Lake Conference Room, 2900 Northwest Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Office, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon. Please call ahead at (541) 618-2200 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chamise Kramer, Public Affairs Specialist, by phone at (541) 618-2051 or via email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review projects previously authorized under Title II of the Act; and

    2. Review and make proposed fee changes for fee sites on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 19, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Chamise Kramer, Public Affairs Specialist, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon, 97504; by email [email protected], or via facsimile to (541) 618-2400.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 6, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05770 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3415-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Eastern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (Recreation RAC) will meet in Baltimore, Maryland. The Recreation RAC is authorized pursuant with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (the Act), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information concerning the Recreation RAC can be found by visiting the Recreation RAC's website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r9/recreation/racs.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, April 20, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    All Recreation RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under the For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites Downtown Baltimore Inner Harbor, 101 South President Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. The meeting will also be available via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend via teleconference, please visit the website in the Summary section or contact Joanna Wilson at [email protected].

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Eastern Region Regional Office located at 626 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Please call 541-860-8048 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joanna Wilson, Eastern Region Recreation RAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-860-8048 or by email at [email protected].

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    Review the following fee proposals:

    a. Regional fee consistency approach;

    b. Monongahela National Forest fee proposals which include the Hopkins Cabin;

    c. Wayne National Forest fee proposals reducing trail permit fees for off-highway vehicle (OHV) users and eliminating fees for horse and mountain bike users;

    d. Hiawatha National Forest fee proposals for Grand Island;

    e. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest fee proposals including new fees at day use sites and one cabin rental, and fee increases for overnight sites; and

    f. Green Mountain Finger Lakes National Forest fee proposals including new fee at Silver Lake Campgrounds, Texas Falls Day Use Area Pavilion, Grout Pond Campground, Backbone Horse Camp and Potomac Group Camp and Pavilion and fee increases at Chittenden Brook, Moosalamoo Campground, Hapgood Pond Campground, Hapgood Pond Day Use, Hapgood Pond Group Picnic sites, and Blueberry Patch Recreation Area.

    Details on all fee proposals can be found by visiting the website in the Summary section.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 9, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Recreation RAC may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Joanna Wilson, Eastern Region Recreation RAC Coordinator, 855 South Skylake Drive, Woodland Hills, Utah 84653; or by email to [email protected].

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case-by case basis.

    Dated: March 6, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05773 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Notice of Correction to Federal Register Notice for Pilot of USPS Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators During 2018 End-to-End Census Test AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 20, 2017, the Census Bureau published a notice, Federal Register Document 2017-20036 (Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181, Pages 43934-43935), proposing to conduct a proof of concept study on the use of the United States Postal Service (USPS) Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators in conjunction with the 2018 End-to-End Census Test—Peak Operations. This notice corrects Federal Register Document 2017-20036 to cancel this collection after the Federal Register Notice was published for public comment.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Census Bureau cancelled the proof of concept study after determining during discussions with USPS that postal carriers had certain disclosure obligations that made it impossible for them to comply with the strict legal confidentiality requirements under Title 13 governing Census data.

    The Census Bureau received a total of twelve sets of comments on the initial Federal Register Notice posting, none of which were dispositive. Two sets of comments requested more information or materials about who would be performing enumeration in special situations, including deployed military and others living outside the country at the time of enumeration. The Census Bureau has special operations and procedures for enumeration of people in these situations, and the proposal for use of USPS Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators did not extend to special operations.

    Three sets of comments generally expressed support for conducting the pilot. One commenter noted that mail carriers know their area of delivery and the people who live there, also expressing a general concern for the safety of those performing enumeration activities. Another commenter suggested that part-time carriers would be better as enumerators than full-time carriers due to schedule flexibility and hourly wages, as well as knowledge of more than one carrier route. The third commenter thought the idea was potentially good, but that care would be required in a nationwide implementation and that results from the pilot test would be important.

    Seven sets of comments expressed concerns about using Postal Carriers to conduct enumeration activities. These comments generally noted that Postal Carriers already work full-time jobs, that Postal Carriers' familiarity with addresses does not necessarily translate into knowledge of the people living at those addresses, and that using Postal Carriers instead of Census employees would not be economically expedient. The latter comment also referenced a Government Accountability Office report that studied the use of Postal Carriers to conduct enumeration activities. Other commenters stated that Postal Carriers and Enumerators require different skill sets to perform in their respective positions and that using Postal Carriers for enumeration could endanger the public perception of Postal Carriers. Yet other comments stated that the test site was not representative of the communities that typically do not self-respond, that the relationship between Postal Carriers and their customers could affect the quality and completeness of data collected, and that enumerating a housing unit could alter the long-term relationship between Postal Carriers and the residents of that housing unit.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05874 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Service Annual Survey AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 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 Andrew Baer, U.S. Census Bureau, 8K057, Washington, DC 20233-6500, 301-763-3183, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Service Annual Survey (SAS), produces annual nationwide estimates of revenue and expenses for service industries. These service industries include all or portions of the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors: Utilities (NAICS 22); Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48 and 49); Information (NAICS 51); Finance and Insurance (NAICS 52); Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (NAICS 53); Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS 54); Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 56); Educational Services (NAICS 61); Health Care and Social Assistance (NAICS 62); Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (NAICS 71); Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72); and Other Services (NAICS 81).

    For most industries, SAS produces estimates of revenue for selected detailed products. The program also collects and publishes information about sales generated from electronic sources (e-commerce). Inventory estimates are produced for selected industries in the Transportation and Information sectors. For industries with a significant non-profit component, separate estimates are developed for taxable firms and organizations exempt from federal income tax.

    The Census Bureau is authorized by Title 13, United States Code, to conduct surveys necessary to furnish current data on subjects covered by the major censuses. These surveys provide continuing and timely national statistical data for the period between economic censuses. The SAS is one of multiple Census Bureau surveys that fulfill this role.

    Data from the Service Annual Survey are needed to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various governmental agencies, private businesses, and trade associations, among other users. The media and the public also rely on these data to understand the health of the U.S. service sector. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the primary Federal user of these annual program statistics, uses the information in developing the national income and product accounts, compiling benchmark and annual input-output tables, and computing Gross Domestic Product by industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data as inputs to its Producer Price Index and in developing productivity measurements. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use the data in the development of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uses the data as a means for assessing FCC policy. The Census Bureau uses the data to provide new insight into changing structural and cost conditions that will impact the planning and design of future Economic Census questionnaires.

    Among the many private sector entities that rely on SAS data, trade and professional organizations, like the Coalition of Service Industries, use the data to analyze industry trends and benchmark their own statistical programs, develop forecasts, and evaluate regulatory requirements. Private businesses use the data to measure market share, analyze business potential, and plan investment decisions. Private industry also uses the data as a tool for marketing analysis. The media uses the data for news reports and background information.

    Through the SAS, the Census Bureau collects data from all of the largest firms in the services sector and from a sample of small- and medium-sized businesses selected using a stratified sampling procedure. The Census Bureau reselects the samples periodically, generally at 5-year intervals. The largest firms in a given industry are always in the sample, while nearly all of the small- and medium-sized firms from the prior sample are replaced following the reselection process. The Census Bureau uses a secure online reporting instrument (Centurion) for all SAS data collection. This electronic system of reporting allows respondents easier access, and more convenience and flexibility than paper survey forms. In rare cases where the company has no access to the internet, the Census Bureau can arrange for the company to provide data to an analyst via telephone.

    In an effort to continue to provide quality data, reduce respondent burden, and increase clarity of the surveys, forms have been examined and will be revised where needed. Current research is being conducted to evaluate the possibility of removing expense questions from some or all forms. In addition, a new question about the incidence of telemedicine will be tested as a possible addition to the form for ambulatory health care service providers.

    II. Method of Collection

    The Census Bureau collects this information via the internet, but in rare cases when respondents have no access to the internet, the Census Bureau will collect the information by telephone.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0422.

    Form Number(s): The Service Annual Survey program consists of more than 170 unique forms for respondents in different industries, which are too extensive to list here. All SAS forms can be viewed at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sas/technical-documentation/questionnaire-app.html.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions and Government hospitals located in the United States.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 90,590.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 to 6 hours depending on form.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 337,958.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131 and 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

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

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

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05871 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-19-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 283—Western Tennessee Area; Application for Reorganization, (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 283, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 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 FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 19, 2018.

    FTZ 283 was approved under the ASF by the FTZ Board on October 11, 2012 (Board Order 1851, 77 FR 64463-64464, October 22, 2012), and the service area was expanded on March 1, 2017 (Board Order 2030, 82 FR 13578, March 14, 2017). The zone currently has a service area that includes the Counties of Dyer, Gibson, Haywood, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison, Obion, Tipton, Fayette, Hardeman and McNairy, Tennessee.

    The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Crockett County as well as portions of Weakley, Henry, Carroll and Henderson Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Memphis Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry.

    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 May 21, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 5, 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: March 19, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05835 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Volodymyr Nedoviz, Hudson County Correctional Facility, 30-35 Hackensack Avenue, Kearney, NJ 07032, and with a prior known address at: Pekarskaya Street, Building 37, Apt. 10, Lvov, Ukraine 79000

    On January 11, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Volodymyr Nedoviz (“Nedoviz”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Nedoviz was convicted of knowingly, intentionally and willfully exporting and attempting to export from the United States to Ukraine night vision and thermal imaging equipment designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, namely an Armasight Zeus-Pro 640 2-16x50 (60Hz) Thermal Imaging sighting instrument, without the required U.S. Department of State license. Nedoviz was sentenced to time served, two years of supervised release, a criminal forfeiture of $2,500, and a special assessment of $100.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”), 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Act or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his/her conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (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 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Nedoviz's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Nedoviz to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Nedoviz.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Nedoviz's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Nedoviz's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Nedoviz had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until January 11, 2028, Volodymyr Nedoviz, currently with an address at Hudson County Correctional Facility, 30-35 Hackensack Avenue, Kearny, NJ 07032, and with a prior known address of Pekarskaya Street, Building 37, Apt. 10, Lvov, Ukraine 79000, when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), 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 Regulations, 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 Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; 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 Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.

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

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

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

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations 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 Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations 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, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Nedoviz by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Nedoviz may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Nedoviz and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until January 11, 2028.

    Issued this 16th day of March 2018. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05830 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coastal Zone Management Program Administration 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, and to solicit public comment on the revised and updated CZMA Section 306A Guidance.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 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 should be directed to Patmarie S. Nedelka, (240) 533-0725, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection and to solicit public comment on the revised and updated CZMA Section 306A Guidance.

    In 1972, in response to intense pressure on United States (U.S) coastal resources, and because of the importance of U.S. coastal areas, the U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq. The CZMA authorized a federal program to encourage coastal states and territories to develop comprehensive coastal management programs. The CZMA has been reauthorized on several occasions, most recently with the enactment of the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996. (CZMA as amended). The program is administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn has delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Services (NOS).

    The coastal zone management grants provide funds to states and territories to: Implement federally-approved coastal management programs; complete information for the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) Performance Management System; develop multi-year program assessments and strategies to enhance their programs within priority areas under Section 309 of the CZMA; submit documentation as described in the CZMA Section 306A on the approved coastal zone management programs; submit requests to update their federally-approved programs through amendments or program changes; and develop and submit state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs (CNP) as required under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.

    Revisions:

    1. The CZMA Section 306A guidance and project questionnaire have been updated to reduce confusion. The 306A Guidance and project questionnaire currently in use were developed in 1999 and need to be updated to ensure consistency with NOAA/NOS environmental compliance policies or grants requirements, and CZMA national strategic priorities, such as community resilience. The revised 306A guidance and questionnaire will provide clarification on the collection of project information and resolve confusion over grants management timelines. The current guidance and proposed revisions can be found at https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/guidance/. Based on recent experience, the time estimate for completing the questionnaire and collecting the necessary documentation is being increased from 5 hours to 15 hours per project.

    2. An electronic system is being developed to improve the routine program change submission process and will replace the current paper-only submission process. The new site will provide the following functionalities: Make active program change documents electronically available to the public, states and federal agencies; Provide electronic notices to state agencies, federal agencies and the public of state program change submissions, OCM decision deadlines and OCM decisions; Automatically notify federal agencies, states and members of the public who request such notifications via email; Allow federal agencies and the public to submit comments to OCM on individual state program change submissions; Allow ability of OCM staff to upload text-searchable PDF documents that are part of program changes. These uploads need to be allowable on a daily basis, and need to be uploaded into a publicly available database. The database should have the ability to contain information for each program change (as in what is currently included in the Microsoft Access database) and to hold associated program change documents; Allow the ability to provide electronic notices to state agencies, federal agencies and the public by adding the notices to the online database and also automatically sending them to a particular list of contacts; and Provide an area on the website/database interface for interested parties to request to be added to the automatic notification contact list. The system is currently being designed and will undergo beta testing later this year. Respondents will have the ability to make their submissions using the new system or by paper until the system is fully operational and accurate, which is expected to be within one year.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of electronic or paper formats for submitting program documents, assessment and strategy documents, and other required materials. Grant applications are submitted electronically via Grants.gov and performance reports are submitted electronically through NOAA Grants Online. Performance measurement data is submitted through an online database. Methods of submittal for other program documents and required materials include electronic submittal via email, mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms, or submittal of electronic files on compact disc.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0119.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 34.

    Estimated Time per Response: Performance reports, 27 hours; assessment and strategy documents, 240 hours; Section 306A questionnaire and documentation, 15 hours; amendments and routine program changes, 16 hours; CNP documentation, 320 hours; CZMA Performance Management System, 24 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,280 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $850 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; (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; and (e) proposed changes or questions concerning the revised and updated CZMA Section 306A Guidance.

    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: March 19, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05804 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG096 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Joint Herring Advisory Panel and Committee on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Logan Airport, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 567-6789.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Herring Advisory Panel (AP) will meet with the Herring Committee (CTE) to review and provide recommendations on a draft white paper considering the addition of river herring and shad as stocks in the Atlantic herring fishery. The AP and CTE will review the final report from the herring and mackerel fishery electronic monitoring project, as well as any associated correspondence. The group will consider whether electronic monitoring/portside sampling is an adequate substitute for at-sea monitoring coverage aboard mid-water trawl vessels, and make recommendations to the Council to consider as they relate to the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment. The group will also discuss how recent river herring/shad bycatch accountability measures triggered in the mackerel fishery could impact the 2018 herring fishing season. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council is potentially considering measures to address this issue in the 2019-21 specifications process. Other business may be discussed if necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05771 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Shipboard Observation Form for Floating Marine Debris.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0644.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 5.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 3.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    This data collection project is coordinated by the NOAA Marine Debris Program, and involve recreational and commercial vessels (respondents), shipboard observers (respondents), NGOs (respondents) as well as numerous experts on marine debris observations at sea. The Shipboard Observation Form for Floating Marine Debris was created based on methods used in studies of floating marine debris by established researchers, previous shipboard observational studies conducted at sea by NOAA, and the experience and input of recreational sailors. The goal of this form is to be able to calculate the density of marine debris within an area of a known size. Additionally, this form will help collect data on potential marine debris resulting from future severe marine debris generating events in order to better model movement of the debris as well as prepare (as needed) for debris arrival. This form may additionally be used to collect data on floating marine debris in any water body.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; not for profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05802 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Coral Reef Conservation Program Administration.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0448.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 89.

    Average Hours per Response: Match waiver request, 1.5 hours; proposal comments, 2 hours.

    Burden Hours: 157.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (Act) was enacted to provide a framework for conserving coral reefs. The Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program, under the Act, provides funds to broad-based applicants with experience in coral reef conservation to conduct activities to protect and conserve coral reef ecosystems. The information submitted by applicants is used to determine if a proposed project is consistent with the NOAA coral reef conservation priorities and the priorities of authorities with jurisdiction over the area where the project will be carried out. As part of the application, NOAA requires a Data and Information Sharing Plan in addition to the standard required application materials.

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; state, local and tribal governments; federal government.

    Frequency: Annually or biennially.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05801 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Cooperative Gamefish Tagging Report.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0247.

    Form Number(s): NOAA Form 88-162.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 2 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 333.

    Needs and Uses: The Cooperative Game Fish Tagging Program was initiated in 1971 as part of a comprehensive research program resulting from passage of Public Law 86-359, Study of Migratory Game Fish, and other legislative acts under which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) operates. The Cooperative Tagging Center attempts to determine the migration patterns of, and other biological information for, billfish, tunas, and swordfish. The fish tagging report is provided to the angler with the tags, and he/she fills out the card with the information when a fish is tagged and mails it to NMFS. Information on each species is used by NMFS to determine migratory patterns, distance traveled, stock boundaries, age, and growth. These data are necessary input for developing management criteria by regional fishery management councils, states, and NMFS.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05803 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2 018-0001] Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated Processes AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 26, 2018, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) published a Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated Processes (RFI), which provided that comments must be received on or before March 27, 2018. On February 22, 2018, the Bureau received a letter from two industry trade associations requesting a 30-day comment period extension for this RFI and for two other Bureau Requests for Information. The additional time is requested in order to allow commenters to develop meaningful responses to the RFI and the other identified Requests for Information. The Bureau believes the extension will allow all stakeholders the opportunity to provide more robust responses. In response to this request, the Bureau has determined that a 30 day extension of the comment period is appropriate.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and Associated Processes, published January 26, 2018, at 83 FR 3686 has been extended. Comments must now be received on or before April 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0001, by any of the following methods: Electronic: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]. Include Docket No. CFPB-2018-0001 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Comment Intake, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Instructions: The Bureau encourages the early submission of comments. All submissions must include the document title and docket number. Please note the number of the topic on which you are commenting at the top of each response (you do not need to address all topics). Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275.

    All submissions in response to this request for information, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Samburg, Counsel, at 202-435-9710. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected].

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05783 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0003] Request for Information Regarding Bureau Enforcement Processes AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 12, 2018, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) published a Request for Information Regarding Bureau Enforcement Processes (RFI), which provided that comments must be received on or before April 13, 2018. On February 22, 2018, the Bureau received a letter from two industry trade associations requesting a 30-day comment period extension for this RFI and for two other Bureau Requests for Information. The additional time is requested in order to allow commenters to develop meaningful responses to the RFI and the other identified Requests for Information. The Bureau believes the extension will allow all stakeholders the opportunity to provide more robust responses. In response to this request, the Bureau has determined that a 30 day extension of the comment period is appropriate.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Request for Information Regarding Bureau Enforcement Processes, published February 12, 2018, at 83 FR 5999 has been extended. Comments must now be received on or before May 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0003, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]. Include Docket No. CFPB-2018-0003 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Comment Intake, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Instructions: The Bureau encourages the early submission of comments. All submissions must include the document title and docket number. Please note the number of the topic on which you are commenting at the top of each response (you do not need to address all topics). Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275.

    All submissions in response to this request for information, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Samburg, Counsel, at 202-435-9710. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected].

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05784 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Air Force Reserve Command F-35A Operational Beddown AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Air Force (USAF) is issuing this notice to advise the public of the intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) F-35A Operational Beddown. The EIS will assess the environmental consequences that could result from the beddown and operation of 24 Primary Aerospace Vehicles Authorized (PAA) F-35A aircraft with 2 Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), facility and infrastructure development, and personnel changes at a military base in the continental United States where the AFRC conducts a global precision attack mission.

    DATES:

    The USAF intends to hold public scoping meetings from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the following communities on the following dates:

    1. Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB)—17 April 2018, at the William F. Dickenson Community Center, 1601 N Krome Avenue, Homestead, Florida 33030 2. Naval Air Station (NAS) Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base (JRB)—19 April 2018, at the Cendera Center, 3600 Benbrook Hwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76116 3. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB)—24 April 2018, at the Tucson Convention Center, 260 S Church Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701 4. Whiteman AFB—26 April 2018, at Knob Noster High School, 504 S Washington Avenue, Knob Noster, Missouri 65336. ADDRESSES:

    The project website (www.AFRC-F35A-Beddown.com) provides more information on the EIS and can be used to submit scoping comments. Scoping comments can also be submitted to Mr. Hamid Kamalpour, U.S. Air Force, (210) 925-2738, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Ave., Ste. 155, JBSA-Lackland AFB, Texas 78236-9853, [email protected].

    For comments submitted by mail, a comment form is available for download on the project website. Comments will be accepted at any time during the environmental impact analysis process. However, to ensure the USAF has sufficient time to consider public input in the preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping comments should be submitted via the project website or to the address listed above by 11 May 2018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The AFRC F-35A mission includes the beddown and operation of one squadron of 24 PAA F-35A aircraft with 2 BAI. The 24 PAA AFRC F-35A aircraft with 2 BAI would replace either 24 AFRC F-16 aircraft at Homestead ARB or NAS Fort Worth JRB or 24 AFRC A-10 aircraft at Davis-Monthan AFB or Whiteman AFB. The USAF has identified NAS Forth Worth JRB as the preferred alternative, and Davis-Monthan AFB, Homestead ARB, and Whiteman AFB as reasonable alternatives. Along with the No Action Alternative, all four bases will be evaluated as alternatives in the EIS. The United States Navy is a Cooperating Agency to the USAF for this EIS.

    Scoping and Agency Coordination: To effectively define the full range of issues to be evaluated in the EIS, the USAF will solicit comments from interested local, state, and federal agencies and elected officials, Native American tribes, interested members of the public, and others. Public scoping meetings will be held in the local communities near the alternative bases. The scheduled dates, times, locations, and addresses for the public scoping meetings concurrently being published in local media.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05807 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID USA-2018-HQ-0009] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Army Marketing and Research Group, ATTN: Mrs. Crystal G. Deleon, 2530 Crystal Drive, Suite 4150, Arlington, VA 22202, or call 703-545-3480.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Marketing Army Civilian Employment Survey; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide the data needed to understand the best marketing strategies to raise awareness of Army civilian employment opportunities with the ultimate goal of filling critical Department of the Army occupations.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,667.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Frequency: One-Time.

    The purpose of this collection is to provide quantitative (survey) data to the Department of the Army on the civilian workforce's attitudes, perceptions, and awareness of civilian career opportunities within the Federal Government, and the Army. The Department of the Army maintains a listing of professional and technical skill sets that are critical to the Service's needs of today and tomorrow. The collection, compilation, and analysis of the proposed quantitative data is imperative to the Department of the Army's marketing and recruitment strategy for informing, identifying, and ultimately hiring those identified with the skill sets necessary for a sustainable Department of the Army. Information for this study will be collected as a survey which will be administered online.

    The data collected will be supplemented with reviews of recent Army branding and marketing practices as well as of recent and projected hiring needs into Department of the Army Civilian jobs. Respondents for quantitative study will be individuals currently employed in the private sector in occupations deemed essential by the Army or individuals who are considering careers in these essential occupations. Quota groups will be established to ensure there is an adequate representation of career stage (pre-, early- and mid) among respondents. Participation in the quantitative study will be voluntary. This is a one-time data collection anticipated to be completed within approximately three months of OMB approval.

    The data collection will focus on awareness and knowledge of Department of Army Civilian job opportunities; comparison of Department of Army Civilian vs. private jobs/careers across key dimensions; most important reasons to seek civilian employment in the Army; perceived negative aspects of Army Civilian employment; reactions to facts and marketing concepts concerning Army Civilian employment; and intended behaviors concerning applying for civilian employment in the Army or recommending to others that they do so.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05812 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2018-OS-0015] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) at: ATTN: Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Suite 04E25, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA, 22350-3100, OR Fax: 571-372-1059.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Personnel Security System Access Request (PSSAR) Form; DD Form 2962-1, DD Form 2962-2; OMB Control Number 0704-0542.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary because Joint Personnel Adjudication System, Defense Information System for Security, Secure Web Fingerprint Transmission, and Defense Central Index of Investigations require personal data collection to facilitate the granting of access to the suite of DMDC systems to Security Managers for the purpose of the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring the aforementioned clearances. As a suite of Personnel Security Systems, they are the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in accesses determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Annual Burden Hours: 7,408.

    Number of Respondents: 22,225.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 44,450.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are Security Managers and Adjudicators at various levels who initiate investigations, verify information and update eligibility and access levels of military, civilian and contractor personnel nominated for access to sensitive/classified DoD information and suitability for employment. The PSSAR is the authoritative source to request, record, and identify what levels of access, roles, and permissions are needed to the suite of DMDC Personnel Security Systems for the purpose of performing functions such as outlined above.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05841 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0013] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Defense Standardization Program Office announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO-DS), ATTN: Mr. Timothy Koczanski, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, STOP 5100, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220, or call (571) 767-6870.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Certification of Qualified Products; DD Form 1718; OMB Control Number 0704-0487.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain, certify, and record qualification of products or processes falling under the DoD Qualification Program. This form is included as an exhibit in an appeal or hearing case file as evidence of the reviewers' products or process qualifications in advance of, and independent of, acquisition.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Annual Burden Hours: 638.

    Number of Respondents: 1276.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1276.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Bi-annually.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05831 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2018-OS-0014] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Manpower Data Center announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) at: ATTN: Defense Information System for Security (DISS), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC); Suite 04E25, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100; OR Fax: 571-372-1059.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Defense Information System for Security (DISS); OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary as the DISS system requires personal data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring such credentials. As a Personnel Security System it is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in accesses determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 333,375.

    Number of Respondents: 22,225.

    Responses per Respondent: 45.

    Annual Responses: 1,000,125.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The Defense Information System for Security (DISS) is a DoD personnel security system and is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in access determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities. Collection and maintenance of personal data in DISS is required to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees, and contractors requiring such credentials. Facility Security Officers (FSOs) working in private companies that contract with DoD and who need access to the DISS system to update security-related information about their company's employees must complete DD Form 2962 (cleared under a separate OMB Control Number). Specific uses include: Facilitation for DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers to obtain accurate up-to-date eligibility and access information on all personnel (military, civilian and contractor personnel) adjudicated by the DoD. The DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers are also able to update eligibility and access levels of military, civilian and contractor personnel nominated for access to sensitive DoD information. Once granted access, the FSOs maintain employee personal information, submit requests for investigations, and submit other relevant personnel security information into DISS on over 1,000,000 contract employees annually.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05837 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-2017-OCR-0094] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a modified system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice of a modified system of records entitled “Complaint Files and Log” (18-08-01). The system contains information on individuals or groups of individuals who have made civil rights complaints to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The information maintained in the system will consist of one or more of the following: Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of complainants, complaint allegations, and results of investigations; correspondence related to the complaint; investigator and attorney memoranda; interview notes or transcriptions and witness statements; documents gathered during an investigation and charts, prepared exhibits, or other analytical materials prepared by OCR staff or by consultants retained by OCR. The information that will form the modified system of records will be collected through complaint investigation files. The information will be used to fulfill the requirement outlined in Federal law.

    DATES:

    Submit your comments on this modified system of records notice on or before April 23, 2018.

    This modified system of records will become applicable upon publication in the Federal Register on March 22, 2018, unless the modified system of records notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment. Significantly modified routine use (8) and newly proposed routine uses (9) and (10) in the paragraph entitled “ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES” will become applicable on April 23, 2018, unless the modified system of records notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment. The Department will publish any significant changes resulting from public comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “Help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about this modified system of records, address them to: Ms. Sandra Battle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will supply an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sandra Battle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5900.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction:

    The Department last published the Complaint Files and Log (18-08-01) system of records in the Federal Register on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12248). The system of records notice is being modified to update the current system locations both in Washington DC and satellite offices. This system of records notice is also being modified to reflect the current categories of sources of the records and the retrievability of the records by any data element. The system of records notice is also being modified to include updated information on the record retention and disposal policies for the records contained in this system.

    The Department proposes to update, but not to significantly change, routine uses (4) “Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosures,” (5) “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act Advice Disclosure,” and (6) “Research Disclosure.” The Department proposes to significantly modify routine use (8) “Contract Disclosure.” The Department also proposes to add to this system of records notice new routine uses (9) entitled “Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data” and (10) entitled “Disclosure in Assisting another Agency in Responding to a Breach of Data.” These will allow the Department to disclose records in this system in order to assist the Office for Civil Rights, the Department, or another Federal agency or entity in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach of data.

    The Department also proposes to update the section entitled “Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records” to reflect the current Department records schedule, approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which governs the retention and disposition of the records.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: March 19, 2018. Candice Jackson, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil Rights.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education (Department), publishes a notice of a modified system of records to read as follows:

    System Name and Number

    Complaint Files and Log (18-08-01).

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202-1100.

    See the Appendix at the end of this system notice for additional system locations.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202-1100.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq.; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, et seq.; Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.; Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq.; and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. 7905.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) uses this system for the following purposes:

    (1) To determine and to document whether there was discrimination against the complainant or others;

    (2) To record the steps taken to resolve a case, which may include investigation and monitoring;

    (3) To store materials gathered, developed, or received during the processing, investigation, and monitoring of a case;

    (4) To document the steps taken to resolve a case;

    (5) To report the status of individual complaints to OCR managers and staff for tracking the progress of individual cases and to provide information used to prepare summaries of case processing activities; and

    (6) To report to Congress, other agencies, and the public to explain or document the work that has been accomplished.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    This system contains information on individuals or groups of individuals who have made civil rights complaints to the Office for Civil Rights.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    This system consists of records relating to complaints to the Office for Civil Rights including:

    (1) Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of complainants, complaint allegations, and results of investigations;

    (2) Correspondence related to the complaint, which may include copies of correspondence sent by OCR to others, correspondence received by OCR, records of telephone conversations, copies of email, or other written communications;

    (3) Investigator and attorney memoranda;

    (4) Interview notes or transcriptions and witness statements;

    (5) Documents gathered during an investigation, including photographs of persons or things, portions of a recipient institution's records, and complainants' or other individuals' educational, medical, or employment records; and

    (6) Charts, prepared exhibits, or other analytical materials prepared by OCR staff or by consultants retained by OCR.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Information in this system of records is obtained from individuals, K-12 schools, postsecondary institutions, and other entities as applicable. The information is collected from the stated sources via oral interviews, paper forms, web pages, and electronic files. Information may also be obtained from other individuals or entities from which data is obtained under routine uses set forth below.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement.

    (1) Disclosure to Congress, Other Agencies, or the Public. The Department may disclose summary information derived from this system of records to Congress, other agencies, and the public to describe the kinds of work that OCR has done or to document the work that OCR has accomplished.

    (2) Disclosure to Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance, Witnesses, or Consultants. The Department will release information contained in this system of records to recipients of Federal financial assistance, witnesses, or consultants if it determines that the release would assist OCR in resolving a civil rights complaint or in obtaining additional information or expert advice relevant to the investigation.

    (3) Enforcement Disclosure. In the event that information in this system of records indicates, either on its face or in connection with other information, a violation or potential violation of any applicable statute, regulations, or order of a competent authority, the Department may disclose the relevant records to the appropriate agency, whether foreign, Federal, State, tribal, or local, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting that violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, Executive order, rule, regulations, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    (4) Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Disclosures.

    (a) Introduction. In the event that one of the parties listed in sub-paragraphs (i) through (v) is involved in judicial or administrative litigation or ADR, or has an interest in judicial or administrative litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose certain records to the parties described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this routine use under the conditions specified in those paragraphs:

    (i) The Department of Education, or any component of the Department; or

    (ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity; or

    (iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to provide or arrange for representation for the employee;

    (iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity if the agency has agreed to represent the employee; or

    (v) The United States if the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.

    (b) Disclosure to the DOJ. If the Department determines that disclosure of certain records to the DOJ is relevant and necessary to litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to the DOJ.

    (c) Adjudicative Disclosures. If the Department or one of its components determines that disclosure of certain records to an adjudicative body before which the Department or one of its components is authorized to appear or to a person or entity designated by the Department or otherwise empowered to resolve or mediate disputes is relevant and necessary to the litigation or ADR, the Department may disclose those records as a routine use to the adjudicative body, person, or entity.

    (d) Parties, Counsels, Representatives, and Witnesses. If the Department or one of its components determines that disclosure of certain records to a party, counsel, representative, or witness is relevant and necessary to the litigation or ADR, the Department or its component may disclose those records as a routine use to the party, counsel, representative, or witness.

    (5) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act Advice Disclosure. The Department may disclose records to the DOJ or the Office of Management and Budget if the Department determines that disclosure is desirable or necessary in determining whether particular records are required to be disclosed under the FOIA or the Privacy Act.

    (6) Research Disclosure. The Department may disclose records to a researcher if an appropriate official of the Department determines that the individual or organization to which the disclosure would be made is qualified to carry out specific research related to functions or purposes of this system of records. The official may disclose records from this system of records to that researcher solely for the purpose of carrying out that research related to the functions or purposes of this system of records. The researcher must agree to maintain safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality with respect to the disclosed records.

    (7) Congressional Member Disclosure. The Department may disclose information to a Member of Congress from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Member made at the written request of that individual. The Member's right to the information is no greater than the right of the individual who requested it.

    (8) Contract Disclosure. If the Department contracts with an entity for the purposes of performing any function that requires disclosure of records in this system to employees of the contractor, the Department may disclose the records to those employees. As part of such a contract, the Department shall require the contractor to agree to maintain safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of the records in the system.

    (9) Disclosure in the Course of Responding to a Breach of Data. The Department may disclose records from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed beach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    (10) Disclosure in Assisting Another Agency in Responding to a Breach of Data. The Department may disclose records from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    The records in this system are contained in digital storage media and in file folders.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    The records in this system are indexed by and retrievable by any data element in any populated data field, including the name of the complainant, the complaint number, the name of the entity against which the complaint was filed, the basis for the alleged discrimination, and the stage of case processing.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with Department Records Schedule 026: Education Discrimination Case Files (N1-441-08-6).

    Administratively closed education discrimination case files shall be destroyed/deleted 6 years after cutoff. Cut off for these files occurs at the end of the fiscal year in which the case is closed or, if a Request for Reconsideration (RFR) is received, when the review of the RFR is completed.

    All other education discrimination case files shall be destroyed/deleted 20 years after cutoff. Cut off for these files occurs at the end of the fiscal year in which the case is closed and monitoring is complete or, if a RFR is received, when the review of the RFR is completed.

    Education discrimination appeals case files shall be destroyed/deleted 20 years after cutoff. Cut off for these files occurs at the end of the fiscal year in which the appeal is closed.

    Case Management System (CMS) Master Data Files are destroyed/deleted 20 years after cutoff. Cut off for these files occurs at the end of the fiscal year in which the case is closed and monitoring is complete or, if a RFR is received, when the review of the RFR is completed.

    Significant education discrimination case files shall not be destroyed/deleted by the Department. With respect to these files, the Department shall transfer non-electronic records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 10 years after cutoff and electronic records to NARA every 5 years, with any related documentation and external finding aids, as specified in 36 CFR 1228.70 or standards applicable at the time. Cut off for these files occurs at the end of the fiscal year in which the case is closed and monitoring is complete.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    The system is maintained on secure computer servers located in one or more secure Department of Education network server facilities. OCR staff access information in the system through use of personal computers located in OCR offices. Data are transmitted among offices on secure servers through the Department of Education's Secure Wide Area Network. The Department of Education maintains the servers on which the records are stored in secure locations with controlled access. Access to OCR offices is controlled and available only to OCR staff and authorized visitors. Authorized OCR staff access the information system using individual user identifiers and passwords. The system also limits data access by type of user and controls users' ability to alter records within the system. File folders containing non-digital information in the system are kept in locked storage rooms. Access to offices in which storage rooms are located is restricted to OCR staff and authorized visitors.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    This system is exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(H) pursuant to 34 CFR 5b.11(c)(2)(iii).

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    This system is exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(H) pursuant to 34 CFR 5b.11(c)(2)(iii).

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    This system is exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) pursuant to 34 CFR 5b.11(c)(2)(iii).

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    The Secretary of Education has exempted by regulations the Complaint Files and Log record system, which is also exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(k)(2) (civil enforcement):

    (1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), regarding access to an accounting of disclosures of records.

    (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1) through (4) and (f), regarding notification of and access to records and correction or amendment of records.

    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (H) regarding inclusion of information in the system notice about procedures for notification, access, and correction of records.

    These exemptions are stated in 34 CFR 5b.11. As indicated in 34 CFR 5b.11, individuals will be provided with information from a record in this system if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled to by Federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of that material, except when in accordance with the following provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2):

    (1) Disclosure of the information would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

    (2) If information was obtained prior to September 28, 1975, disclosure of the information would reveal the identity of the source under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

    HISTORY:

    The Complaint Files and Log (18-08-02) system of records notice was published in the Federal Register on June 4, 1999 (64 FR 30106, 30145-30146). This system of records was merged and consolidated with the system of records entitled “Case Information System” (18-08-01) (64 FR 30106, 30143-30145) on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12248-12251), and the system was renamed “Complaint Files and Log (18-08-01).”

    Appendix to 18-08-01 ADDITIONAL SYSTEM LOCATIONS:

    OCR, Boston Office, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109.

    OCR, New York Office, 32 Old Slip, New York, NY 10005.

    OCR, Philadelphia Office, The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

    OCR, Chicago Office, Citigroup Center, 500 W Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60661.

    OCR, Cleveland Office, 1350 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115.

    OCR, Atlanta Office, 61 Forsyth St. SW, Atlanta, GA 30303.

    OCR, Dallas Office, 1999 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    OCR, Kansas City Office, 1010 Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.

    OCR, Denver Office, Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building, 1244 Speer Boulevard, Denver, CO 80204.

    OCR, San Francisco Office, 50 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    OCR, Seattle Office, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174.

    [FR Doc. 2018-05886 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0001] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary Schools Correction

    In notice document 2018-05258 beginning on page 11510 in the issue of Thursday, March 15, 2018, make the following correction:

    On page 11510, in the first column, in the DATES heading, the second line, “May 14, 2018” should read “April 16, 2018”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2018-05258 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0008; FRL-9974-74] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    III. Notice of Receipt—New Uses

    1. EPA Registration Number: 352-856, 352-859. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694. Applicant: The IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Cyantraniliprole. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H, except blueberry, lowbush and lingonberry; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; Caneberry subgroup 13-07A; Celtuce; Coffee, green bean; Florence fennel; Kohlrabi; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; and Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16. Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Number: 352-856, 352-857, 352-858, 352-859, 100-1418, 100-1420. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694. Applicant: DuPont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030. Active ingredient: Cyantraniliprole. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Rice, soybean. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Number: 66330-39. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0376. Applicant: IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Acequinocyl. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Guava and Tropical and subtropical, Small fruit, Inedible Peel, Subgroup 24A. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 26, 2018. Hamaad Syed, Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05880 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0007; FRL-9974-75] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected]; or Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    III. Notice of Receipt—New Active Ingredients

    1. File Symbol: 67986-O. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0678. Applicant: OmniLytics, Inc., 9100 South 500 West, Sandy, UT 84070. Product name: AgriPhage-Citrus Canker. Active ingredient: Bactericide—Bacteriophage active against Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri at 0.0001%. Proposed use: To be used on citrus trees, including orange, grapefruit, pummelo, mandarin, lemon, lime, tangerine, tangelo, and kumquat, for the control of citrus canker caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Contact: BPPD.

    2. File Symbol: 69553-I. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0726. Applicant: Andermatt Biocontrol AG, Stahlermatten 6, CH-6146 Grossdietwil, Switzerland (in care of SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: Loopex. Active ingredient: Insecticide—Autographa californica multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus strain FV#11 at 0.1%. Proposed use: For control of cabbage looper larvae. Contact: BPPD.

    3. File Symbol: 91176-E. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0025. Applicant: Skirdle, LLC DBA Protein Express Laboratories, 600 Vine St, Suite 2800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Product name: PELS 422. Active Ingredient: 1,2-Hexanediol at 4.25%. Product Type: Antimicrobial. Proposed Uses: End-use product as a one-step liquid cleaner, deodorizer, sanitizer, and disinfectant for use on hard, non-porous, non-food contact surfaces. For Commercial, Institutional, and Residential Use. Contact: AD.

    4. File Symbol: 91176-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0025. Applicant: Skirdle, LLC DBA Protein Express Laboratories, 600 Vine St, Suite 2800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Product name: PELS 421. Active Ingredient: 1,2-Hexanediol at 3.03%. Product Type: Antimicrobial. Proposed Uses: End-use product as a one-step liquid cleaner, deodorizer, and sanitizer for use on hard, non-porous, non-food contact surfaces. For Commercial, Institutional, and Residential Use. Contact: AD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 26, 2018. Hamaad Syed, Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05882 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:14 a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Joseph M. Otting (Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).

    Dated: March 20, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05934 Filed 3-20-18; 4:15 pm] 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 April 20, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. BOLC Corp., Fayetteville, Tennessee; to merge with North Alabama Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire North Alabama Bank, both of Hazel Green, Alabama.

    2. Community Bancshares of Mississippi, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Brandon, Mississippi; to acquire additional voting shares for a total of 18.18 percent, of Community Bancshares of Mississippi, Inc., Brandon, Mississippi, and thereby indirectly acquire Community Bank of Mississippi, Forest, Mississippi.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. HYS Investments, LLC; to acquire additional voting shares for a total of up to 27.7 percent, of BOTS, Inc., and thereby acquire shares of VisionBank, all of Topeka, Kansas.

    2. Wamego Bancshares, Inc., Wamego, Kansas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of The St. Marys State Bank, Saint Marys, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05839 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 6, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Van Financial Corporation, Breda, Iowa; to continue engaging in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05840 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [Docket No. C-4458] CoreLogic Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter is intended to remedy the impact of CoreLogic's failure to comply fully with the Decision and Order previously issued in In the Matter of CoreLogic, Inc., Docket No. C-4458. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the Order To Show Cause and Order Modifying Order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would remedy CoreLogic's failure to comply fully with the Decision and Order.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write: “In the Matter of CoreLogic, Inc., Docket No. C-4458” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/corelogicconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of CoreLogic, Inc., Docket No. C-4458” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Huber (202-326-3331), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 15, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 16, 2018. Write “In the Matter of CoreLogic, Inc., Docket No. C-4458” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/corelogicconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of CoreLogic, Inc., Docket No. C-4458” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 16, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment I. Introduction

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from Respondent CoreLogic Inc. (“CoreLogic”). The Consent Agreement is intended to remedy the impact of CoreLogic's failure to comply fully with the Decision and Order previously issued in this matter.

    Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, CoreLogic consents to the Commission issuing an Order to Show Cause and Order Modifying Order. In the Order to Show Cause, the Commission describes the changes it proposes to make to the Decision and Order and the reasons these changes are necessary. CoreLogic disputes the allegations in the Order to Show Cause but consents to the Commission issuing the Order Modifying Order amending the Decision and Order.

    The Commission has placed the proposed Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make it final.

    II. The Respondent

    Respondent CoreLogic is a publicly-traded company headquartered in Irvine, California. It provides real property information, analytics, and services to a broad array of customers. As part of its business, CoreLogic collects, maintains, and licenses aggregated county tax assessor and recorder data (“bulk data”) from across the United States.

    III. The Decision and Order

    In 2014, CoreLogic sought to acquire DataQuick Information Systems, Inc. (“DataQuick”), a subsidiary of TPG VI Ontario 1 AIV L.P. Both CoreLogic and DataQuick licensed bulk data to customers, and the Commission alleged that the acquisition would significantly increase concentration in the market for national bulk data in violation of the federal antitrust laws. CoreLogic agreed to settle the matter by divesting assets to Renwood RealtyTrac LLC (“RealtyTrac”) that would enable RealtyTrac to replace DataQuick in the market for national bulk data. The Commission issued the Decision and Order requiring the divestiture on May 20, 2014 and CoreLogic completed the acquisition of DataQuick soon thereafter.

    The central requirement of the Decision and Order is that CoreLogic provide RealtyTrac with DataQuick's bulk data, and certain ancillary data that DataQuick sold with its bulk data so that RealtyTrac could compete on the same basis as DataQuick in the market affected by CoreLogic's acquisition. In addition, CoreLogic is required to license and provide updated bulk data to RealtyTrac for at least five years. CoreLogic is also required to provide information and assistance to RealtyTrac so that RealtyTrac can replicate DataQuick's ability to gather, license and maintain national bulk data after RealtyTrac's license with CoreLogic expires.

    The Decision and Order requires CoreLogic to enter an agreement with RealtyTrac to license the required data within 10 days of purchasing DataQuick. Sixty days after entering the license with RealtyTrac, CoreLogic was to provide DataQuick's bulk data and begin delivering updated bulk data. CoreLogic and RealtyTrac entered their license agreement on March 26, 2014.

    The Order also contains a number of provisions to support RealtyTrac's efforts to maintain competition in the bulk data market. CoreLogic must allow certain legacy DataQuick customers to terminate their DataQuick contracts in order to do business with RealtyTrac, and, during a period lasting until nine months after the Divestiture Date, include a six month termination clause in all new agreements with former DataQuick bulk data customers. In addition, the Decision and Order requires CoreLogic to facilitate RealtyTrac's ability to hire experienced DataQuick employees. Finally, the Order appoints Mr. Mitchell S. Pettit as monitor to oversee CoreLogic's compliance with the Order.

    IV. The Order To Show Cause

    When CoreLogic signed the Consent Agreement, it represented that it could fulfill the terms of the Decision and Order. Instead, soon after CoreLogic began delivering bulk data to RealtyTrac, RealtyTrac discovered that it was missing data that DataQuick has provided to bulk data customers. RealtyTrac continued to uncover additional missing data for at least the next 2 years. When RealtyTrac contacted CoreLogic about the missing data, CoreLogic provided the data, but at a time well after the deadline for providing data in the Order. Contrary to the requirements of the Order, CoreLogic did not proactively identify the full scope of bulk data that DataQuick had used and ensure CoreLogic was delivering this data to RealtyTrac. In addition, CoreLogic did not provide RealtyTrac, Commission staff, or the monitor with complete and accurate information regarding the manner in which DataQuick provided bulk data to customers.

    CoreLogic also did not provide RealtyTrac certain data that DataQuick licensed from third parties. The Decision and Order requires CoreLogic to provide all of the bulk data that DataQuick used, including data licensed from third parties. CoreLogic agreed to this provision when it signed the Decision and Order. However, after the Commission entered the Decision and Order, CoreLogic informed Commission staff that it could not provide RealtyTrac with some of the required data because of limitations on DataQuick's rights to sublicense the data. CoreLogic offered to provide information and introductions to enable RealtyTrac to attempt to license the data from its owners. Although useful, this offer did not comply with Decision and Order and required RealtyTrac to expend additional resources not contemplated when the Commission issued the Decision and Order.

    It also appears that CoreLogic did not provide all of the support to RealtyTrac that was required by the Order. For example, CoreLogic stopped standard third party testing of an ancillary product, in violation of the Decision and Order, and did not tell RealtyTrac or Commission staff that it had stopped this testing. RealtyTrac subsequently discovered a quality issue with the product that CoreLogic did not discover through its internal quality control processes. The issue was ultimately resolved and third party testing resumed.

    To help resolve the issue of missing data, the Monitor hired a Technical Assistant, Dr. Thomas Teague. Dr. Teague helped the Monitor develop and recommend a technical plan to (i) identify the data that CoreLogic was required to provide under the Order, (ii) provide all missing data and information to RealtyTrac, and (iii) verify that the required data and information had been provided. With the help of the Monitor, CoreLogic is in the final stages of completing this plan with RealtyTrac. After that, CoreLogic will transfer of all required information regarding DataQuick's bulk data business to RealtyTrac.

    CoreLogic's actions violated the Decision and Order and interfered with its remedial goal of maintaining competition in the market affected by CoreLogic's acquisition of DataQuick. CoreLogic slowed the delivery of DataQuick's bulk data and information to RealtyTrac. Further, RealtyTrac relied on CoreLogic's inaccurate assertions that it was providing RealtyTrac with all of DataQuick's bulk data. These actions, which violated its obligations under the Order, harmed RealtyTrac's reputation and required RealtyTrac to expend technical and financial resources to uncover missing data.

    V. The Order Modifying Order

    The most significant modification to the Decision and Order is a three-year extension of the period during which CoreLogic must provide updated bulk data to RealtyTrac. The initial five-year term in the Decision and Order will expire in March 2019. This extension will remediate the effect of CoreLogic's delays in providing all of the required data to RealtyTrac and extend CoreLogic's obligations through March 2022.

    The Order Modifying Order also adds two detailed addenda to the Decision and Order: A Technical Transfer Plan and a Service Level Addendum. The Technical Transfer Plan identifies the steps CoreLogic will take to transfer required data and information. The Service Level Addendum requires CoreLogic to meet certain data quality metrics and identifies the steps that CoreLogic must take to resolve any quality issues that arise. The Order Modifying Order also requires CoreLogic to provide prior notice before modifying the DataQuick Fulfillment Platform, which will allow the Commission to verify that CoreLogic has not altered the platform in a manner that violates the Order.

    Finally, the Order Modifying Order resets two deadlines and decreases the frequency of required compliance reports. CoreLogic must provide customers early termination rights until nine months after completion of the first portion of the Technical Transfer Plan and provide technical assistance to RealtyTrac until one year after completion of the Technical Transfer Plan. The frequency of interim compliance reports is extended from every 60 days to every 90 days. This reduces the burden on CoreLogic without diminishing the ability of the staff and the Monitor to effectively monitor CoreLogic's compliance with the Decision and Order and Order Modifying Order.

    The Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner McSweeny not participating by reason of recusal.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05799 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 161 0230] Oregon Lithoprint, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Trade Commission published a document in the Federal Register of March 15, 2018, concerning the proposed consent agreement in Oregon Lithoprint, Inc. The document contained the incorrect date by which comments must be received. This document corrects the date by which comments must be received; they must be received on or before April 10, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Turner (202-326-3619), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 15, 2018, in FR Doc. 83-51, on page 11529, in the third column, correct the DATES caption to read:

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2018.

    Dated: March 16, 2018. Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05800 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket Number CDC-2018-0025, NIOSH-308] Draft—National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal Health AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of a draft NORA Agenda entitled National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal Health for public comment. To view the notice and related materials, visit https://www.regulations.gov and enter CDC-2018-0025 in the search field and click “Search.”

    Table of Contents • Dates • Addresses • For Further Information Contact • Supplementary Information • Background
    DATES:

    Electronic or written comments must be received by May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2018-0025 and docket number NIOSH-308, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Docket Office, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-34, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226-1998.

    Instructions: All submissions received in response to this notice must include the agency name and docket number [CDC-2018-0025; NIOSH-308]. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. All information received in response to this notice will also be available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH Docket Office, 1150 Tusculum Avenue, Room 155, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Novicki ([email protected]), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-20, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, phone (404) 498-2581 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.

    Background: The National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal Health is intended to identify the research, information, and actions most urgently needed to prevent occupational injuries. The National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal Health provides a vehicle for stakeholders to describe the most relevant issues, gaps, and safety and health needs for the sector. Each NORA research agenda is meant to guide or promote high priority research efforts on a national level, conducted by various entities, including: Government, higher education, and the private sector.

    This is the first Musculoskeletal Health Agenda, developed for the third decade of NORA (2016-2026). It was developed considering new information about injuries and illnesses, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference. As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Musculoskeletal Health. Comments expressing support or with specific recommendations to improve the Agenda are requested. A copy of the draft Agenda is available at https://www.regulations.gov (see Docket Number CDC-2018-0025).

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05818 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Interstate Administrative Subpoena and Notice of Interstate Lien.

    OMB No.: 0970-0152.

    Description: Section 452(a)(11) of the Social Security Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to promulgate a form for administrative subpoenas and imposition of liens used by State child support enforcement (Title IV-D) agencies. The Interstate Administrative Subpoena is used to collect information for the establishment, modification and enforcement of child support orders in interstate cases. Section 454(9)(E) of the Social Security Act requires each State to cooperate with any other State in using the federal form for issuance of administrative subpoenas and imposition of liens in interstate child support cases. The Notice of Interstate Lien impose liens in cases with overdue support and allows a State IV-D agency to file liens across State lines, when it is more efficient than involving the other State's IV-D agency. Tribal IV-D agencies are not required to use this form but may choose to do so. OMB approval of these forms is expiring on June 30, 2018 and the Administration for Children and Families is requesting an extension of this form.

    Respondents: State, local or Tribal agencies administering a child support enforcement program under title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Administrative Subpoena 30,076 1 0.50 15,038 Notice of Lien 1,892,073 1 0.50 946,037

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 961,075.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05817 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1094] 2018 Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Science Symposium AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public symposium.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public symposium entitled “2018 Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Science Symposium.” The purpose of the public symposium is to discuss scientific topics related to the regulation of biologics and highlight science conducted at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) by showcasing how scientific research informs regulatory decision making and to provide a forum for developing collaborations within FDA and with external organizations. The symposium will include presentations by experts from academic institutions, government agencies, and research institutions.

    DATES:

    The public symposium will be held on June 25 and 26, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public symposium will be held at FDA's White Oak campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public symposium participants (non-FDA employees) is through Bldg. 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherri Revell or Loni Warren Henderson, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 1118, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-8010, email: [email protected] (subject line: CBER Science Symposium).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The purpose of the public symposium is to discuss scientific topics related to the regulation of biologics and highlight science conducted at CBER by showcasing how scientific research informs regulatory decision making and to provide a forum for developing collaborations within FDA and with external organizations.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Symposium

    The public symposium will include presentations on the following topics: (1) Emerging and re-emerging diseases; (2) diverse types of data in regulatory decision making; (3) immune response to vaccination; (4) immunotherapy; (5) new technologies for research and treatments; (6) the role of the microbiome in human disease; and (7) regenerative medicine.

    III. Participating in the Public Symposium

    Registration: To register for the public symposium, please visit the following website: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2018-center-for-biologics-evaluation-and-research-cber-science-symposium-tickets-39525851887. Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone.

    Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public symposium (either in person or by webcast) (see Streaming Webcast of the Public Symposium) must register online by June 18, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. There will be no onsite registration; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.

    If you need special accommodations, due to a disability, please contact Sherri Revell or Loni Warren Henderson no later than June 11, 2018.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Symposium: This public symposium will also be webcast. A link to the live webcast of this symposium will be provided upon registration at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2018-center-for-biologics-evaluation-and-research-cber-science-symposium-tickets-39525851887. Persons interested in viewing the live webcast must register online by June 18, 2018. Early registration is recommended because webcast connections are limited. A video record of the public symposium will be available at https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/default.htm for 1 year.

    If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit https://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified the website addresses in this document as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    Dated: March 1, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05805 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2014-N-1027; FDA-2017-N-1064; FDA-2014-D-0329; FDA-2013-N-1429; FDA-2009-N-0505; and FDA-2014-N-0192] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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.

    Table 1—List of Information Collections Approved by OMB Title of collection OMB Control No. Date approval expires Infant Formula Recall Regulations 0910-0188 12/31/2020 State Petitions for Exemptions from Preemption 0910-0277 12/31/2020 Guidance for Industry: Fees for Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Sections 503B and 744K of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 0910-0776 12/31/2020 Guidance for Industry: Registration of Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 0910-0777 12/31/2020 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Human Food and Cosmetics Manufactured from, Processed With, or Otherwise Containing, Material from Cattle 0910-0623 1/31/2021 Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Milk and Milk Product, Seafood, Infant Formula, and Formula for Young Children Manufactured/Processors with Interest in Exporting to China 0910-0839 1/31/2021 Dated: March 16, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05797 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Solicitation for Applications From Individuals Interested in Being Appointed to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is seeking nominations of six qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as members of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC). CFSAC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS, through the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), on a broad range of issues and topics related to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

    DATES:

    Applications for individuals to be considered for appointment to the Committee must be received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on April 23, 2018 at the address listed below.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nominations should be mailed or delivered to Commander (CDR) Gustavo Ceinos, MPH, Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 728F6, Washington, DC 20201. Nomination materials, including attachments, may be submitted electronically to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Gustavo Ceinos, Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Room 728F6, Washington, DC 20201. Inquiries may also be made to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002. The purpose of the CFSAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS, through the ASH, on issues related to ME/CFS. The CFSAC advises and makes recommendations on a broad range of topics including: (1) Opportunities to improve knowledge and research about the epidemiology, etiologies, biomarkers and risk factors for ME/CFS; (2) research on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of ME/CFS and potential impact of treatment options; (3) strategies to inform the public, health care professionals, and the biomedical academic and research communities about ME/CFS advances; (4) partnerships to improve the quality of life of ME/CFS patients; and (5) strategies to insure that input from ME/CFS patients and caregivers is incorporated into HHS policy and research. The CFSAC charter is available at: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/charter/index.html.

    Management and support services for Committee activities are provided within the OASH. The ASH provides direction and guidance for services performed to support CFSAC activities and operation.

    Nominations: OASH is requesting nominations to fill six CFSAC positions. The Committee composition consists of thirteen members:

    • Seven biomedical research scientists with demonstrated expertise in biomedical research applicable to ME/CFS;

    • at least three patients or caregivers affected by ME/CFS; and

    • three individuals with expertise in health care delivery, private health care services or insurers, or voluntary organizations concerned with the problems of individuals with ME/CFS.

    The breakdown of the six vacant positions OASH is seeking is as follows:

    • Four positions for biomedical research scientists with demonstrated expertise in biomedical research applicable to ME/CFS;

    • one position for patients or caregivers affected by ME/CFS; and

    • one position for an individual with expertise in health care delivery, private health care services or insurers, or voluntary organizations concerned with the problems of individuals with ME/CFS.

    Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee will serve as voting members and may be invited to serve for a period of four years. CFSAC members are authorized to receive a stipend for conducting committee related business including attending Committee meetings. Committee members also are authorized to receive per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred for conducting Committee related business. To qualify for consideration of appointment to the Committee, an individual must possess demonstrated experience and knowledge in the designated fields or disciplines, as well as expert knowledge of the broad issues and topics pertinent to ME/CFS.

    Nomination materials should be typewritten. If mailed, please submit original documents. The nomination materials should be submitted (postmarked or received) no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on the specified date. The following information must be part of the nomination package submitted for each individual being nominated:

    (1) A nomination letter clearly stating:

    a. Name and affiliation of the nominee;

    b. qualifications of the nominee related to the focus area(s) described above (i.e., specific attributes which qualify the nominee for service in this capacity);

    c. area (out of the three listed above) the nominee is interested in representing based on his/her experience and background;

    d. statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee;

    (2) The nominator's name, address, and daytime telephone number;

    (3) The home and/or work address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated;

    (4) A current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae or resume. The vitae or resume may be condensed to highlight the experience of the nominee related to the focus areas described above.

    An individual may self-nominate to be on the Committee. Federal employees should not be nominated for consideration of appointment to this Committee. Nominations that do not contain all of the above information will not be considered.

    Electronic submissions: Nomination materials, including attachments, may be submitted electronically to [email protected]. An email from the CFSAC Support Team will be sent to the nominating individual or nominee to confirm receipt of the nomination. If the email confirmation is not received within two working days, please call 202-690-7650.

    Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: Written documents may be submitted to the following addressee only: CDR Gustavo Ceinos, MPH, Designated Federal Officer, CFSAC, Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Room 728F6, Washington, DC 20201.

    Telephone and facsimile submissions cannot be accepted.

    The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of CFSAC and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. Candidates who are selected for appointment to the committee are required to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts for an ethics analysis to be conducted to identify potential conflicts of interest.

    Dated: March 14, 2018. Gustavo Ceinos, CDR, USPHS, Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05833 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-42-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Findings of research misconduct have been made on the part of Bhagavathi Narayanan, Ph.D., former Research Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University (NYU). Dr. Narayanan engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants R03 CA107813, R01 CA106296, R01 CA106296-05S1, R03 CA133929, and P30 CA017613. The administrative actions, including debarment for a period of three (3) years, were implemented beginning on February 26, 2018, and are detailed below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wanda K. Jones, Dr. P.H., Interim Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:

    Bhagavathi Narayanan, Ph.D., New York University: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by NYU and analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Bhagavathi Narayanan, former Research Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, NYU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by NCI, NIH, grants R03 CA107813, R01 CA106296, R01 CA106296-05S1, R03 CA133929, and P30 CA017613.

    ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by knowingly and intentionally falsifying and/or fabricating data reported in the following three (3) published papers and seven (7) grant applications submitted to NIH:

    Clin. Cancer Res. 9:3503-3513, 2003 (hereafter referred to as “Clin. Cancer Res. 2003”) Anticancer Res. 31(12):4347-4358, 2011 (hereafter referred to as “Anticancer Res. 2011”) Int. J. Oncol. 40:13-20, 2012 (hereafter referred to as “Int. J. Oncol. 2012”) • R01 CA163381-01 • R01 CA138741-01A1 • R01 CA106296-06A1 • R01 CA106296-06A2 • R03 CA158253-01A1 • R21 CA170314-01 • R01 ES024139-01

    ORI found that Respondent fabricated and/or falsified Western blot data for protein expression levels in cancer tissues and/or cells in fifty-eight (58) blot panels included in twenty-two (22) figures reported in three (3) papers and seven (7) grant applications submitted to NIH. In the absence of valid Western blot images, the quantitative data presented in associated bar graphs and statistical analyses also are false.

    Specifically, Respondent trimmed and/or copied Western blot images from unrelated sources, manipulated them to obscure their origin, and reused and relabeled them to represent different experimental results in:

    • Figures 5C, 6C, and 7C in Clin. Cancer Res. 2003 • Figures 2c, 4b, 6a, and 6b in Int. J. Oncol. 2012 • Figure 2B in Anticancer Res. 2011, also as Figure 1C in R01 CA163381-01 • Figure 2A in Anticancer Res. 2011, also as Figure 1B in R01 CA163381-01 • Figure 5D in Anticancer Res. 2011, also as Figure 8 in R01 CA163381-01 • Figure 1A in R01 CA163381-01 • Figure 6 in R01 CA138741-01A1 • Figure 4 in R01 CA106296-06A1 • Figure 4 in R01 CA106296-06A2 • Figures 3 and 6 in R03 CA158253-01A1 • Figures 3 and 4 in R21 CA170314-01 • Figures 8A and 8B in R01 ES024139-01

    Dr. Narayanan entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement and voluntarily agreed, beginning on February 26, 2018:

    (1) To exclude herself for a period of three (3) years from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376) of OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR part 180 (collectively the “Debarment Regulations”);

    (2) to exclude herself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a period of three (3) years; and

    (3) as a condition of the Agreement, to the retraction of Anticancer Res. 31(12):4347-4358, 2011 (PMID: 22199300), and will request that this paper be retracted.

    Wanda K. Jones, Interim Director, Office of Research Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05774 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Support of R13 Grant Applications.

    Date: April 5, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Janice B. Allen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Science, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30/Room 3170 B, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-7556.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Maintain and Enrich Resource Infrastructure for Existing Environmental Epidemiology Cohorts.

    Date: April 11, 2018.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Keystone Building, 530 Davis Drive, Room 1002, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Linda K. Bass, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Science, P.O. Box 12233, MD K3-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1307.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 16, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05849 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice To Close Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment Review.

    Date: March 26, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Mary A. Kelly, Scientific Review Specialist, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 703, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-9695, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 16, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05850 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0014; OMB No. 1660-0016] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Senior Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address [email protected] or Brian Koper, Emergency Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 202-646-3085.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP and maintains the maps that depict flood hazard information. In 44 CFR 65.3, communities are required to submit technical information concerning flood hazards and plans to avoid potential flood hazards when physical changes occur. In 44 CFR 65.4, communities are provided the right to submit technical information when inconsistencies on maps are identified. In order to revise the Base (l-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), and floodways presented on the NFIP maps, a community must submit scientific or technical data demonstrating the need for a revision. The NFIP regulations cited in 44 CFR part 65 outline the data that must be submitted for these requests. This collection serves to provide a standard format for the general information requirements outlined in the NFIP regulations, and helps establish an organized package of the data needed to revise NFIP maps. This information collection expired on May 31, 2017. FEMA is requesting a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired.

    This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2017 at 82 FR 61787 with a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs.

    Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    OMB Number: 1660-0016.

    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-27, Overview and Concurrence Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27A, Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27B, Riverine Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27C, Coastal Analysis Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27D, Coastal Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27E, Alluvial Fan Flooding Form.

    Abstract: The forms in this information collection are used to determine if the collected data will result in the modification of a BFE, a SFHA, or a floodway. Once the information is collected, it is submitted to FEMA for review and is subsequently included on the NFIP maps. Using these maps, lenders will determine the application of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and insurance agents will determine actuarial flood insurance rates. The maps are also used by communities participating in the NFIP to establish floodplain management requirements.

    Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government and Business or Other for-Profit Institutes.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,291.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,291.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,107.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,084,308.

    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $22,010,000.

    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $24,559.06.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: March 15, 2018. William H. Holzerland, Senior Director of Information Management, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05769 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2017-N173; FXES11130300000-189-FF03E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    DATES:

    We must receive any written comments on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to [email protected].

    Requesting Copies of Applications or Public Comments: Copies of applications or public comments concerning any of the applications in this notice may be obtained by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5.U.S.C. 552): Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458.

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods. Please specify applicant name(s) and application number(s) to which your comments pertain (e.g., TEXXXXXX).

    Email: [email protected] Please indicate the respective permit number (e.g., Application No. TEXXXXXX) in the subject line of your email message.

    U.S. Mail: Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carlita Payne, 612-713-5343; [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless the activities are specifically authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit Applications

    Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild.

    Application
  • No.
  • Applicant Species Location Activity Type of take Permit
  • action
  • TE38087B Jessica Hickey-Miller, Independence, Ohio Add gray bat (Myotis grisescens) to existing permitted species: Indiana bat (M. sodalis), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) Add new locations—AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, MS, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, ND, RI, SC, SD, VT, WI, WY—to existing authorized locations: IL, IN, KY, MI, MO, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, TN, VA, WV Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Add new activity—band—to existing authorized activities: Capture, handle, mist-net, radio-tag, release Amend, renew. TE234121 Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (M. grisescens), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis), Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus towsendii ingens), Virginia big-eared bat (C.t. virginianus) AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MS, MN, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, harp trap, radio-tag, band, release, salvage Renew. TE64984C Brian Cooper, Philadelphia, PA Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (M. grisescens), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis), Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus towsendii virginianus) IL, MD, MI, NJ, NY, OH, PA, VA, WV Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, harp trap, radio-tag, band, enter hibernacula, release New. TE15664C April McKay, Springville, IN Add gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus towsendii ingens), Virginia big-eared bat (C.t. virginianus) to existing permitted species: Indiana bat (M. sodalis), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) AL, AR, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MS, MN, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Add new activities—wing biopsy, collect tissue and hair samples, salvage—to existing authorized activities: Capture, handle, mist-net, radio-tag, band, release Amend. TE64986C Jeffrey Gordon, Westerville, OH Clubshell (Pleurobema clava), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), purple cat's paw pearlymussel (E. obliquata obliquata), snuffbox mussel (E. triquetra), white catspaw (pearlymussel) (E. obliquata perobliqua), pink mucket (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) OH Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, release, relocate, salvage New. TE64987C Brooke Daly, San Diego, CA Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (M. grisescens), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) MO Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, harp trap, radio-tag, band, wing biopsy, collect tissue and swab samples, release New.
    Public Availability of Comments

    We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in ADDRESSES.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Contents of Public Comments

    Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.

    Next Steps

    If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register.

    Authority

    Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: January 9, 2018. Lori H. Nordstrom, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05829 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2018-N014; FXES11130300000-189-FF03E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    DATES:

    We must receive any written comments on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to [email protected].

    Requesting Copies of Applications or Public Comments: Copies of applications or public comments concerning any of the applications in this notice may be obtained by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the above-mentioned office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5.U.S.C. 552).

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods. Please specify applicant name(s) and application number(s) to which your comments pertain (e.g., TEXXXXXX).

    Email: [email protected] Please refer to the respective permit number (e.g., Application No. TEXXXXXX) in the subject line of your email message.

    U.S. Mail: Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne (address above).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carlita Payne, 612-713-5343; [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless the activities are specifically authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Permit Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit Applications

    Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild.

    Application
  • No.
  • Applicant Species Location Activity Type of take Permit
  • action
  • TE82666A Justin Boyles, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (M. grisescens), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, harp trap, radio-tag, data-log, band, wing biopsy, collect hair, blood, fungal lift tape and swab samples, enter hibernacula, release, salvage Renew. TE21831B Katherine Caldwell, Asheville, NC Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) AL, AR, CT, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, MD, MI, MO, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, VT, VA, WV Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, radio-tag, band, wing biopsy, collect hair, fungal lift tape and swab samples, release, salvage Renew. TE64238B Jocelyn Karst, Champaign, IL Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) AL, AR, CT, DE, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, radio-tag, band, wing biopsy, collect hair, fungal lift tape and swab samples, release, salvage Renew. TE74742C Benjamin Smith, Springfield, MO Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (M. grisescens), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis) AL, AR, CT, DE, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, mist-net, harp trap, radio-tag, band, wing biopsy, collect hair, fecal, fungal lift tape and swab samples, release New.
    Public Availability of Comments

    We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in ADDRESSES.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Contents of Public Comments

    Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.

    Next Steps

    If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register.

    Authority

    Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: February 12, 2018. Lori H. Nordstrom, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05828 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [189D0102DM DLSN00000.000000 DS61200000 DX61201; OMB Control Number 1090-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities; DOI Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of the Secretary are proposing to renew an information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Jeffrey Parrillo, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to [email protected]. Please reference OMB Control Number 1090-0011 in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jeffrey Parrillo by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 202-208-7072.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

    We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Office of the Secretary; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Office of the Secretary enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Office of the Secretary minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.

    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    Title of Collection: DOI Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Control Number: 1090-0011.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals/households; businesses; and, State, local, and Tribal governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 11,000 for surveys, 6,000 for comment cards, 500 for focus groups.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 11,000 for surveys, 6,000 for comment cards, 500 for focus groups.

    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 15 minutes for surveys, 2 minutes for comment cards, 2 hours for focus groups.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,950.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: Once per request.

    Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Benjamin Simon, Chief DOI Economist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05838 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [189D0102DM DLSN00000.000000 DS61200000 DX61201; OMB Control Number 1040-0001] Agency Information Collection Activities; DOI Programmatic Clearance for Customer Satisfaction Surveys AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of the Secretary are proposing to renew an information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Jeffrey Parrillo, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to [email protected]. Please reference OMB Control Number 1090-0011 in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jeffrey Parrillo by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 202-208-7072.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

    We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Office of the Secretary; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Office of the Secretary enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Office of the Secretary minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.

    Abstract: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103-62) requires agencies to “improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.” To fulfill this responsibility, DOI bureaus and offices must collect data from their respective user groups to better understand the needs and desires of the public and to respond accordingly. Executive Order 12862 “Setting Customer Service Standards” also requires all executive departments to “survey customers to determine . . . their level of satisfaction with existing services.” We use customer satisfaction surveys to help us fulfill our responsibilities to provide excellence in government by proactively consulting with those we serve. This programmatic clearance provides an expedited approval process for DOI bureaus and offices to conduct customer research through external surveys such as questionnaires and comment cards.

    The proposed renewal covers all of the organizational units and bureaus in DOI. Information obtained from customers by bureaus and offices will be provided voluntarily. No one survey will cover all the topic areas; rather, these topic areas serve as a guide within which the bureaus and offices will develop questions. Questions may be asked in languages other than English (e.g., Spanish) where appropriate. Topic areas include:

    (1) Delivery, quality and value of products, information, and services. Respondents may be asked for feedback regarding the following attributes of the information, service, and products provided:

    (a) Timeliness.

    (b) Consistency.

    (c) Accuracy.

    (d) Ease of Use and Usefulness.

    (e) Ease of Information Access.

    (f) Helpfulness.

    (g) Quality.

    (h) Value for fee paid for information/product/service.

    (2) Management practices. This area covers questions relating to how well customers are satisfied with DOI management practices and processes, what improvements they might make to specific processes, and whether or not they feel specific issues were addressed and reconciled in a timely, courteous, and responsive manner.

    (3) Mission management. We will ask customers to provide satisfaction data related to DOI's ability to protect, conserve, provide access to, provide scientific data about, and preserve natural, cultural, and recreational resources that we manage, and how well we are carrying out our trust responsibilities to American Indians.

    (4) Rules, regulations, policies. This area focuses on obtaining feedback from customers regarding fairness, adequacy, and consistency in enforcing rules, regulations, and policies for which DOI is responsible. It will also help us understand public awareness of rules and regulations and whether or not they are explained in a clear and understandable manner.

    (5) Interactions with DOI Personnel and Contractors. Questions will range from timeliness and quality of interactions to skill level of staff providing the assistance, as well as their courtesy and responsiveness during the interaction.

    (6) General demographics. Some general demographics may be gathered to augment satisfaction questions so that we can better understand the customer and improve how we serve that customer. We may ask customers how many times they have used a service, visited a facility within a specific timeframe, their ethnic group, or their race.

    All requests to collect information under the auspices of this proposed renewal will be carefully evaluated to ensure consistency with the intent, requirements, and boundaries of this programmatic clearance. Interior's Office of Policy Analysis will conduct an administrative and technical review of each specific request in order to ensure statistical validity and soundness. All information collections are required to be designed and deployed based upon acceptable statistical practices and sampling methodologies, and procedures that account for and minimize non-response bias, in order to obtain consistent, valid data and statistics that are representative of the target populations.

    Title of Collection: DOI Programmatic Clearance for Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 1040-0001.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: DOI customers. We define customers as anyone who uses DOI resources, products, or services. This includes internal customers (anyone within DOI) as well as external customers (e.g., the American public, representatives of the private sector, academia, other government agencies). Depending upon their role in specific situations and interactions, citizens and DOI stakeholders and partners may also be considered customers. We define stakeholders to mean groups or individuals who have an expressed interest in and who seek to influence the present and future state of DOI's resources, products, and services. Partners are those groups, individuals, and agencies who are formally engaged in helping DOI accomplish its mission.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 120,000. We estimate approximately 60,000 respondents will submit DOI customer satisfaction surveys and 60,000 will submit comment cards.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 120,000.

    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 15 minutes for a customer survey; 3 minutes for a comment card.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 18,000.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Benjamin Simon, Chief DOI Economist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05842 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0025151; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has corrected a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2018. This notice adds a paragraph that was inadvertently left out.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    This notice corrects a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register (83 FR 8101-8102, February 23, 2018). The paragraph summarizing the determinations made by TVA was inadvertently left out of the original notice.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (83 FR 8101, February 23, 2018), column 3, under the heading “Determinations Made by the Tennessee Valley Authority,” the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 7:

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

    The Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: February 28, 2018. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05854 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1002] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation With Respect to the Antitrust Claim; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding With Respect to Defaulting Respondents AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to terminate the investigation with respect to a claim by complainant United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“U.S. Steel”) for violation of section 337 based on a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States. The Commission requests written submissions, under the schedule set forth below, on remedy, public interest, and bonding concerning the previously defaulted respondents subject to the false designation of origin claim.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 on June 2, 2016, based on a complaint filed by complainant U.S. Steel, alleging a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”). See 81 FR 35381 (June 2, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, or in the sale after importation of certain carbon and alloy steel products by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; and (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. Id. The notice of investigation identified forty (40) respondents that are Chinese steel manufacturers or distributors, as well as some of their Hong Kong and United States affiliates. Id. In addition, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party in this investigation. Id. Eighteen (18) respondents participated in the investigation and all other respondents were found in default, including fifteen (15) respondents that are subject to the false designation of origin claim: (1) Shandong Iron and Steel Group Co. Ltd. of Jinan City, China; Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. of Jinan City, China; Jigang Hong Kong Holdings Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong, China; and Jinan Steel International Trade Co., Ltd. of Jinan City, China; (2) Benxi Iron and Steel (Group) International Economic and Trading Co. Ltd. and Benxi Steel (Group) Co. Ltd., both of Benxi City, China; and (3) Tianjin Tiangang Guanye Co., Ltd. of Tianjin, China; Wuxi Sunny Xin Rui Science and Technology Co., Ltd. of Wuxi Province, China; Taian JNC Industrial Co., Ltd. of Tai'an City, China; EQ Metal (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China; Kunshan Xinbei International Trade Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China; Tianjin Xinhai Trade Co., Ltd. of Tianjin, China; Tianjin Xinlianxin Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. of Tianjin, China; Tianjin Xinyue Industrial and Trade Co., Ltd. of Tianjin, China; and Xian Linkun Materials (Steel Pipe Supplies) Co., Ltd. of Xi'an City, China (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”). See Comm'n Notice (Oct. 14, 2016), Comm'n Notice (Oct. 18, 2016), Comm'n Notice (Nov. 18, 2016).

    On August 26, 2016, the participating respondents filed a motion to terminate U.S. Steel's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21. On November 14, 2016, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”), granting Respondents' motion to terminate Complainant's antitrust claim under 19 CFR 210.21 and, in the alternative, under 19 CFR 210.18. Order No. 38 (Nov. 14, 2016). On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice determining to review Order No. 38. See 81 FR 94416-7 (Dec. 23, 2016). On April 20, 2017, the Commission held an oral argument on the issue of whether a complainant alleging a violation of section 337 based on antitrust law must show antitrust injury.

    On February 15, 2017, U.S. Steel filed a motion to partially terminate the investigation on the basis of withdrawal of its trade secret allegations, which were alleged against only certain of the participating respondents. On February 22, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID, granting U.S. Steel's motion to terminate the investigation with respect to its trade secret allegations. Order No. 56 (Feb. 22, 2017). On March 24, 2017, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 56. Comm'n Notice (Mar. 24, 2017).

    On October 2, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID, granting the remaining participating respondents' motions for summary determination of no section 337 violation based on false designation of origin. Order No. 103 (Oct. 2, 2017). On November 1, 2017, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 103. Comm'n Notice (Nov. 1, 2017).

    Having examined the record of this investigation, including Order No. 38, the petitions for review, the responses thereto, the parties' submissions on review, and the parties' statements at the oral argument, the Commission has determined that a complainant alleging a violation of section 337 based on antitrust law must show antitrust injury, which is a standing requirement. The Commission finds that U.S. Steel has failed to plead antitrust injury and U.S. Steel has taken the position that, if given the opportunity to amend the complaint, it will not be able to plead or demonstrate antitrust injury. Accordingly the Commission has determined to terminate the investigation with respect to U.S. Steel's antitrust claim. Commissioner Broadbent dissents and has filed a dissenting opinion.

    Section 337(g)(1) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) authorize the Commission to order relief against any defaulting respondent against which U.S. Steel alleged false designation of origin, unless, after considering the public interest, the Commission finds that such relief should not issue. Given the disposition of the underlying false designation of origin claims for the participating respondents in Order No. 103, any relief issued in this investigation would not apply to the participating respondents.

    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may: (1) Issue an order that could result in the exclusion of articles manufactured or imported by the Defaulting Respondents; and/or (2) issue cease and desist orders that could result in the Defaulting Respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994).

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors that the Commission will consider include the effect that the exclusion order and/or cease and desists orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

    Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Complainant and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to state the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported and any known importers of the accused products. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on March 30, 2018. Initial submissions are limited to 50 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of the public interest. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on April 6, 2018. Reply submissions are limited to 25 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1002”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 19, 2018. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05815 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-598-600 and 731-TA-1408-1410 (Preliminary)] Rubber Bands From China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of rubber bands from China and Thailand provided for in subheadings 4016.99.35 and 4016.99.60 (statistical reporting numbers 4016.99.3510 and 4016.99.6050) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and to be subsidized by the governments of China and Thailand. The Commission further determines that imports of rubber bands from Sri Lanka that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV and to be subsidized by the government of Sri Lanka are negligible pursuant to section 771(24) of the Act, and its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations with regard to rubber bands from this country are thereby terminated pursuant to section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations regarding imports of rubber bands from China and Thailand. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On January 30, 2018, Alliance Rubber Co., Hot Springs, Arkansas filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of rubber bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Accordingly, effective January 30, 2018, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-598-600 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1408-1410 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of February 5, 2018 (83 FR 5143). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2018, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 19, 2018.2 The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4770 (March 2018), entitled Rubber Bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-598-600 and 731-TA-1408-1410 (Preliminary).

    2 Due to the Federal government weather-related closure on March 2, 2018, these investigations have been tolled by one day pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1671b(a)(2), 1673b(a)(2).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 19, 2018. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05834 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-921; (Enforcement Proceeding)] Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Enforcement Proceeding Based on a Settlement Agreement and an Unopposed Motion To Rescind the Remedial Orders; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to grant a joint unopposed motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding based on a settlement agreement and an unopposed motion to rescind the remedial orders.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3438. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 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 this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted the original investigation on July 14, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Navico, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Navico Holding AS, of Egersund, Norway (collectively, “Navico”). 79 FR 40778 (July 14, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 (“the ’840 patent”), 8,300,499, and 8,605,550 (“the ’550 patent”). Id. The named respondents included Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc., each of Olathe, Kansas (collectively, “Garmin”), and Garmin (Asia) Corporation of New Taipei City, Taiwan. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party. Id.

    On December 1, 2015, the Commission found a violation of section 337 based on infringement of certain claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents. 80 FR 76040, 76040-41 (Dec. 7, 2015). The Commission issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting Garmin and Garmin (Asia) Corporation from importing certain marine sonar imaging devices, including downscan and sidescan devices, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16-19, 23, 32, 39-41, and 70-72 of the ’840 patent and claims 32 and 44 of the ’550 patent. Id. The Commission also issued cease and desist orders against Garmin and Garmin (Asia) Corporation, prohibiting the sale and distribution within the United States of articles that infringe certain claims of the ’840 and ’550 patents. Id. at 76041.

    On August 18, 2016, the Commission issued a modified limited exclusion order. Notice (Aug. 18, 2016).

    On October 17, 2016, the Commission instituted the subject enforcement proceeding based on a complaint filed by Navico, alleging that Garmin violated the cease and desist orders issued in the original investigation. 81 FR 71531, 71531-32 (Oct. 17, 2016). On May 25, 2017, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an enforcement initial determination finding that Garmin violated the cease and desist orders. The ALJ also recommended imposition of a civil penalty of approximately $37 million if the Commission found a violation of the cease and desist orders.

    On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Garmin International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (No. 16-1572), finding invalid as obvious all claims covered by the remedial orders and reversing the Commission's final determination of a section 337 violation. On October 31, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a mandate in accordance with its June 13, 2017 judgment.

    On November 1, 2017, Garmin filed a motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding in light of the reversal of the final determination of violation in the original investigation. On November 2, 2017, Garmin filed a motion to rescind the remedial orders. On November 13, 2017, Navico and OUII filed responses to Garmin's motion to terminate and motion to rescind the remedial orders. On November 17, 2017, Garmin filed a motion to file a reply. On November 28, 2017, Navico filed an opposition to Garmin's motion to file a reply.

    On February 14, 2018, Navico and Garmin filed a joint motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding based on a settlement agreement. Public and confidential versions of the parties' settlement agreement are attached to the motion. The joint motion states that the settlement agreement resolves the dispute between Navico and Garmin in the enforcement proceeding and that “[t]here are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between Navico and Garmin regarding the subject matter of this proceeding.” The motion also states that “there no longer exists a basis upon which to continue this enforcement proceeding,” that “termination of this proceeding pursuant to the [a]greement poses no threat to the public interest,” and that “it is in the interest of the public and administrative economy to grant this motion.” The joint motion also requested that the Commission act on Garmin's unopposed motion to rescind the remedial orders. On February 26, 2018, OUII filed a response, supporting the joint motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding and request to rescind the remedial orders.

    The Commission has determined to grant the joint unopposed motion to terminate the enforcement proceeding based on a settlement agreement. The Commission finds that the joint motion complies with the requirements of section 210.21(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)) and that there are no extraordinary circumstances to prevent the requested termination. The Commission also finds that termination of the enforcement proceeding would not be contrary to the public interest. The enforcement proceeding is terminated.

    The Commission has also determined to rescind the modified limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 19, 2018. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05816 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Global Climate and Energy Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Global Climate and Energy Project (“GCEP”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its nature and objectives. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the members of GCEP have amended the agreement between them to change the nature and objectives of GCEP by extending the termination of GCEP from August 31, 2018, to August 31, 2019, modifying the work descriptions of GCEP, and revising the payment obligations of the members.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and GCEP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On March 12, 2003, GCEP filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16552).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 17, 2015. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58504).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05764 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Exemption From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed exemption.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains notice of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of a proposed individual exemption from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). If this proposed one-year temporary exemption is granted, certain entities with specified relationships to BNP Paribas will not be precluded from relying on the exemptive relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14.

    DATES:

    Applicable Date: If granted, this proposed one-year temporary exemption will be applicable for the period beginning on May 30, 2018 until the earlier of: (1) May 29, 2019; or (2) the date of final agency action made by the Department in connection with an application for longer-term exemptive relief for the covered transactions described herein.

    Written comments and requests for a public hearing on the proposed exemption should be submitted to the Department within five days from the date of publication of this Federal Register Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should state the nature of the person's interest in the proposed exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption, if granted. A request for a hearing can be requested by any interested person who may be adversely affected by an exemption. A request for a hearing must state: (1) The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person making the request; (2) the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption; and (3) a statement of the issues to be addressed and a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing. The Department will grant a request for a hearing made in accordance with the requirements above where a hearing is necessary to fully explore material factual issues identified by the person requesting the hearing. A notice of such hearing shall be published by the Department in the Federal Register. The Department may decline to hold a hearing where: (1) The request for the hearing does not meet the requirements above; (2) the only issues identified for exploration at the hearing are matters of law; or (3) the factual issues identified can be fully explored through the submission of evidence in written (including electronic) form.

    All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. D-11949. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via email or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by email to: [email protected], or by FAX to (202) 693-8474 by the end of the scheduled comment period. The application for exemption and the comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1515, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.

    Warning: All comments received will be included in the public record without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or otherwise protected (such as Social Security number or an unlisted phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. However, if EBSA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EBSA might not be able to consider your comment. Additionally, the http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EBSA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly to EBSA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public record and made available on the internet.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the Department at (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The anticipated court date for conviction will arise before the Department is able to perform a complete analysis of the application. Accordingly, the Department proposes to grant this temporary exemption to protect Covered Plans from certain costs and/or investment losses that may arise to the extent entities with a corporate relationship to BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA lose their ability to rely on PTE 84-14 as of the Conviction Date, as described above. Comments received in response to this proposed one-year temporary exemption will also be considered in connection with the Department's determination whether or not to grant any subsequent exemption.

    The proposed exemption would provide relief from certain of the restrictions set forth in sections 406 and 407 of ERISA. No relief from a violation of any other law would be provided by this exemption including any criminal conviction described herein.

    Furthermore, the Department cautions that the relief in this proposed exemption would terminate immediately if, among other things, an entity within the BNP Paribas corporate structure is convicted of a crime described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 (other than the 2015 Convictions and the 2018 Conviction) during the Exemption Period. While such an entity could apply for a new exemption in that circumstance, the Department would not be obligated to grant the exemption. The terms of this proposed exemption have been specifically designed to permit Covered Plans to terminate their relationships in an orderly and cost-effective fashion in the event of an additional conviction or a determination that it is otherwise prudent for a Covered Plan to terminate its relationship with an entity covered by the proposed exemption.

    Summary of Facts and Representations 1

    1 The Summary of Facts and Representations is based on BNP's representations, unless indicated otherwise.

    1. The Applicant is BNP Paribas S.A. (BNP Paribas) and its current and future affiliates, and certain related entities (collectively, the Applicant). BNP Paribas is a publicly-held French bank, with principal offices in Paris, France. BNP Paribas is the parent company of BNP Paribas USA, Inc. (hereinafter, BNP Paribas USA), which is the U.S. holding company for the U.S. Corporate and Investment Banking operations of BNP Paribas.2 It is expected that BNP Paribas USA will be criminally convicted on May 30, 2018 for misconduct relating to its FX operations, as described below.

    2 BNP Paribas USA went by the name Paribas North America, Inc. during the misconduct described below.

    2. BNP Paribas has several affiliates that provide investment management services. These affiliates manage or seek to manage the assets of ERISA-covered plans and IRAs on a discretionary basis, including retirement plans sponsored by BNP Paribas or an affiliate, whether through collective investment trusts or otherwise. As of March 31, 2017, BNP Paribas' asset management division, BNP Paribas Asset Management (BNPP AM), managed approximately €580 billion (US $619 billion) in total client assets, including assets under advisory agreements, for clients located in 81 countries. BNPP AM had approximately 700 investment professionals in 34 countries, including 65 in the United States.

    3. The primary registered adviser affiliates or banks in which BNP Paribas owns all or substantial interests, directly or indirectly, and which may use the QPAM exemption in managing plan assets (the BNP Affiliated QPAMs), include the following: BNP Paribas Asset Management USA, Inc.; BNP Paribas Asset Management UK Limited; BNP Paribas Asset Management Singapore Limited; Bank of the West; First Hawaiian Bank; BancWest Investment Services, Inc.; and Bishop Street Capital Management Corp. In total, the affiliated asset managers in the United States manage approximately $66 billion in client assets, and approximately $50 billion on a discretionary basis, over $3.5 billion of which is comprised of ERISA-covered plan and IRA assets. According to the Applicant, certain of these affiliates routinely use the QPAM exemption to provide relief for party-in-interest investment transactions.

    4. On May 1, 2015, the District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted BNP Paribas (hereinafter, BNP Paribas or BNP) in Case Number 14-cr-00460 (LGS) for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder, and the Trading with the Enemy Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code Appendix, Section 1 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder (the U.S. Conviction). The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York in Case Number 2014 NY 051231, also convicted BNP on April 15, 2015 for falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.05(1) (the New York Conviction, and with the U.S. Conviction, the 2015 Convictions). The 2015 Convictions involved a conspiracy that extended from as early as 2004 through 2012 between BNP and banks and other entities located in or controlled by countries subject to U.S. sanctions, including Sudan, Iran, and Cuba (Sanctioned Entities), other financial institutions located in countries not subject to U.S. sanctions, and others known and unknown, to knowingly, intentionally and willfully move at least $8,833,600,000 through the U.S. financial system on behalf of Sanctioned Entities in violation of U.S. sanctions laws, including transactions totaling at least $4.3 billion that involved Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs).3

    3 An SDN appears on a list of individuals, groups, and entities subject to economic sanctions by OFAC. SDNs are specifically designated individuals and companies whose assets are blocked from the U.S. financial system. SDNs are included on the list because they are owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries, as well as individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers, designated under sanctions programs that are not country-specific.

    5. In anticipation of the 2015 Convictions, BNP submitted to the Department of Labor (the Department) an application for an individual exemption, Exemption Application D-11827, on July 1, 2014, for certain BNP-affiliated and related QPAMs to continue to rely upon the relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 84-14, notwithstanding the 2015 Convictions. On November 26, 2014, the Department published a notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register, at 79 FR 70661. On April 15, 2015, the Department published a notice of final exemption, PTE 2015-06, at 80 FR 20261. That exemption contains numerous conditions, and precludes relief to the extent BNP, or certain parties related to BNP, are again convicted of a crime described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 (i.e., other than the 2015 Convictions).

    6. On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (the Department of Justice) filed a criminal information in the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) charging BNP Paribas USA with a one-count violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 (the Information). The Information charges that, from September 2011 until at least July 2013, BNP Paribas USA through a single Central and Eastern European, Middle Eastern and African Emerging Markets currencies (“CEEMEA” currencies) trader employed by an affiliate of BNP Paribas USA, BNP Paribas Securities Corp. (BNP Sec Corp), participated in a conspiracy with employees of other financial institutions to suppress and eliminate competition in CEEMEA currencies by various means and methods, including by: (i) Agreeing to enter into non-bona fide trades among themselves on an electronic FX trading platform, for the sole purpose of manipulating prices; (ii) agreeing to subsequently cancel these non-bona fide trades, or to offset them by entering into equivalent trades in the opposite direction, in a manner designed to hide such actions from other FX market participants; (iii) coordinating on the price, size and timing of their bids and offers on an electronic FX trading platform in order to manipulate prices on that and other electronic FX trading platforms; (iv) agreeing to refrain from trading where one or more of the co-conspirators had a stronger need to buy or sell than the others, in order to prevent the co-conspirators from bidding up the price or offering down the price against each other; (v) coordinating their trading prior to and during fixes in a manner intended to manipulate final fix prices; (vi) coordinating their trading in order to move pricing through their customers' limit order levels; (vii) agreeing on pricing to quote to specific customers; and (viii) employing measures to hide their coordinated conduct from customers as well as other FX market participants (the Conduct).

    A plea agreement was presented to the District Court on January 25, 2018 (the Plea Agreement). Under the Plea Agreement, BNP Paribas USA agreed to enter a plea of guilty (the Plea) to the charge set out in the Information (i.e., a one-count violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act). In addition, BNP Paribas USA will make an admission of guilt to the District Court. The Applicant expects that the District Court will enter a judgment against BNP Paribas USA that will require remedies that are materially the same as those set forth in the Plea Agreement.

    Under the Plea Agreement, among other things: BNP Paribas USA shall pay to the United States a criminal fine of $90 million; BNP Paribas USA and its related entities shall strengthen their compliance and internal controls as required by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), and any other regulatory or enforcement agencies that have addressed the Conduct; and for a period of three years from the date of execution of the Plea Agreement, BNP Paribas shall report to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division all credible information regarding criminal violations of U.S. antitrust laws by BNP Paribas USA and certain of its related entities, as well as any of their employees as to which supervisors within the bank (or legal and compliance personnel) are aware.

    7. The FRB entered a cease and desist order (the FRB Order) on July 17, 2017, against BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas USA and BNP Sec Corp concerning unsafe and unsound banking- practices relating to BNP Paribas's FX business, including with respect to inappropriate communications between BNP Paribas FX traders and FX traders at other financial institutions and by BNP Paribas's FX sales personnel and customers. Such communications include disclosures of trading positions and coordination, disclosures of confidential customer information, discussions of bid/offer spreads offered to customers, and discussions on trading to trigger or defend FX barrier positions. The FRB Order required BNP Paribas to cease and desist, assessed a civil money penalty of $246,375,000, and required the parties thereto to agree to take certain affirmative actions. Under the FRB Order, BNP Paribas must create, with respect to FX and other benchmark related activities, an enhanced written internal controls and compliance program, an enhanced internal audit program, and a written plan to improve BNP Paribas' compliance and risk management program, each acceptable to the FRB. Under the FRB Order, BNP Paribas must also conduct an exemption review of compliance policies and a risk-focused sampling of key controls regarding FX and other benchmark-related activities.

    8. The DFS entered into a consent order (the DFS Order) on May 24, 2017 with BNP Paribas and its New York branch (the DFS Order Parties) to settle DFS's investigations into alleged violations of the New York Banking Law (Banking Law) with respect to FX business during the period between 2007 and 2013. The conduct described in the DFS Order includes collusive conduct carried out through on-line chat rooms, improper exchanges of information, manipulating prices, and misleading customers by hiding markups on executed trades. The DFS Order finds that the DFS Order Parties violated the Banking Law by conducting business in an unsafe and unsound manner and by failing to maintain and make available true and accurate books, accounts, and records reflecting all transactions and actions and also violated a provision of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations by failing to submit a report to the Superintendent immediately upon discovering fraud, dishonesty, making of false entries or omission of true entries, or other misconduct. Pursuant to the DFS Order, the DFS Order Parties were required to pay a civil monetary penalty of $350 million, which was paid on June 1, 2017. The DFS Order also requires the DFS Order Parties to submit written proposals for approval by the DPS covering its senior management oversight, internal controls and compliance program, compliance risk management program, and internal audit program regarding the DPS Order Parties' FX trading business and related sales activities.

    9. As noted above, the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and BNP Related QPAMs will no longer be able to rely on the relief described in PTE 2015-06 as of the sentencing date of the 2018 Conviction, which is tentatively scheduled for May 30, 2018. BNP, in its application for this exemption, represents that “great harm would be caused to plans if there were any gap in the relief between PTE 2015-06 and the relief contained herein.” In this regard, the Applicant states that, as of March 31, 2017, BNPP AM USA managed approximately $1.6 billion in assets for eight plans that are subject to ERISA or the Code by operation of law.4 BNPP AM USA manages fixed income, currency, and equity strategies, utilizing the following derivative instruments, among others: foreign exchange forwards, credit linked notes, structured notes, and swaps. The Applicant states that many of the firm's pension plan accounts, especially those that are subject to ERISA, are dependent on the QPAM Exemption for such instruments. According to the Applicant, without such instruments, BNPP AM USA would be unable to fulfill its mandate to these plans. In addition to direct costs, there are indirect costs to departing clients, such as the cost to the plans of issuing RFPs, finding other managers, and other costs that may be associated with reinvesting the assets.

    4 The Applicant states that BNPP AM USA managed more than $1.6 billion in public plan assets that are subject to ERISA by contract. The Applicant states that it is appropriate for the Department to take cognizance of the effect that the denial of relief in this case would have on participants in public plans, which often hold their managers to “ERISA-like” standards, and who may well decide to change managers if the Applicant were denied relief, causing transition costs for those plans as well.

    The Applicant states further that First Hawaiian Bank, the asset manager associated with BancWest Corporation's Hawaiian affiliates, manages 80 ERISA plans with approximately $1.46 billion in assets, and 479 IRAs with approximately $173.2 million in assets. ERISA plan and IRA portfolios are comprised of investment-grade taxable fixed income securities, equity strategies, and equity linked notes, as well as ETFs and mutual funds that are used in balanced portfolios, which may rely on the QPAM Exemption. The Applicant “conservatively” estimates that, in the event exemptive relief is not granted, the transaction and related costs to liquidate various security holdings in these plans and IRAs would be approximately $818,995 (i.e., five basis points on the market value of the affected plans), not including reinvestment costs.

    The Applicant states that, as of March 31, 2017, Bank of the West managed 25 ERISA plans with approximately $78 million in discretionary assets, and 351 IRAs with over $204.5 million in discretionary assets, including accounts with assets that are not held at Bank of the West. These accounts are invested across various asset classes, including but not limited to fixed income securities, ETFs, and mutual funds where Bank of the West may rely on several potential exemptions, including but not limited to the QPAM Exemption. The Applicant states that using five basis points on the market value of the affected accounts, and assuming that the assets would need to be liquidated because clients would not be prepared to have a manager that had been affirmatively denied relief under the QPAM Exemption, the liquidation cost would be over $141,066, not including additional costs that may be associated with reinvesting the liquidated assets.

    The Applicant states that if the exemption request is denied, plans that decide to continue to employ the Affiliated QPAMs could be prohibited from engaging in certain transactions that would be beneficial to such plans, such as hedging transactions using over-the-counter options or derivatives. The Applicant states that, even if other exemptions were acceptable to such counterparties, the cost of the transaction could still increase.

    The Applicant requests an exemption that contains the conditions set forth in PTE 2015-06. According to the Applicant, such an exemption would be protective of plans in that: (i) The entity pleading guilty will not be involved in the provision of discretionary investment management services to ERISA-covered plans and IRAs; and (ii) there have been, and will be, policies and procedures and training in place for the Affiliated QPAMs. BNP represents further that BNP Paribas employees outside of the Affiliated QPAMs are not consulted with respect to trading decisions and investment strategies of the Affiliated QPAMs for their ERISA-covered plan and IRA clients, nor do the Affiliated QPAMs consult with other parts of the BNP Paribas organization in connection with investment decisions made on behalf of their ERISA-covered plan and IRA clients. BNP states that BNP Paribas will maintain internal control procedures designed to prevent improper activities and has complied (and will continue to comply) with all applicable requirements specified in the orders and Plea Agreement and any other agreements entered into by BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA with other domestic and foreign regulatory agencies in connection with the Conduct. Policies and procedures will be reasonably designed to protect the ERISA-covered plan and IRA clients of the asset management businesses of the Affiliated QPAMs from improper influence on the part of affiliated entities. Finally, the Applicant notes that all of the conditions that make the QPAM Exemption protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of ERISA plans and IRAs will be incorporated into this exemption, if granted.

    10. The Department is not persuaded that the conditions of PTE 2015-06 are sufficient to protect plans subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered plan) or plans subject to section 4975 of the Code (an IRA), in each case, with respect to which a BNP Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84-14, or with respect to which a BNP Affiliated QPAM (or any BNP Paribas affiliate) has expressly represented that the manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies on the QPAM class exemption (PTE 84-14) (Covered Plans).5 The conditions in PTE 2015-06 do not take into account the second Conviction in 2018. Further, after reviewing the application for this exemption, the Department believes additional conditions are necessary to protect Covered Plans during the Exemption Period. These additional conditions reflect the Department's concern regarding the level of misconduct engaged in by BNP personnel. As noted in the New York State Department of Financial Services Consent Order, “The misconduct engaged in by more than a dozen BNPP traders and salespersons was broad; sometimes very deep; involved employees located in both New York and other BNPP locations across the globe; and occurred over an extended period of time.” 6

    5 For purposes of this exemption, a Covered Plan does not include an ERISA-covered plan or IRA to the extent the BNP Affiliated QPAM has expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM status or PTE 84-14 in entering into a contract, arrangement, or agreement with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA.

    6 In its application to the Department, the Applicant represented that, among other things: BNP Paribas has continued to enhance its enterprise-wide compliance program in an effort driven by senior management. BNP Paribas has increased the budget of the compliance function by €327 million since 2014 to bolster its compliance function, bringing the 2017 compliance function budget to €682 million. BNP Paribas has added over 2,000 compliance personnel, more than doubling the number of the global compliance staff to over 3,800 compliance officers worldwide between 2014 and 2017. Further, BNP Paribas has invested in compliance projects, information technology, management information systems, legal, and other enhancement and remediation efforts.

    This exemption's conditions are discussed below. This exemption, if granted, is effective from May 30, 2018 until the earlier of May 29, 2019 or the date a final agency action is made by the Department in connection with an application for longer-term exemptive relief for the covered transactions described herein. If the Applicant submits an exemption request for longer term relief, and the Department subsequently determines that longer term relief is warranted, the effective period of this exemption will end on the earlier of May 29, 2019, or the effective date of such new exemption.

    11. Several of this exemption's conditions are aimed at ensuring that the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and Related QPAMs were not involved in the conduct that gave rise to any of the BNP Convictions (i.e., the 2015 BNP Convictions and the 2018 BNP Conviction). Accordingly, the exemption generally precludes relief to the extent the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs were aware of, participated in, approved of, furthered, benefitted, or profited from, the misconduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions.7 Further, the BNP Affiliated QPAMs may not employ or knowingly engage any of the individuals that participated in the BNP conduct attributable to any of the BNP Convictions.

    7 For clarity, references to the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs include any individual employed by or engaged to work on behalf of these QPAMs during or after the period of misconduct.

    12. The exemption further provides that no BNP Affiliated QPAM will use its authority or influence to direct an “investment fund” that is subject to ERISA or the Code and managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM with respect to one of more Covered Plans, to enter into any transaction with BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA, or engage BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA to provide any service to such investment fund, for a direct or indirect fee borne by such investment fund, regardless of whether such transaction or service may otherwise be within the scope of relief provided by an administrative or statutory exemption.

    13. This exemption will terminate if BNP Paribas or any of its affiliates are convicted of any additional crimes described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14, or if any of the other conditions of PTE 84-14 have not been met. Also, with very limited exceptions, BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA may not act as a fiduciary within the meaning of section 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) of ERISA, or section 4975(e)(3)(A) and (C) of the Code, with respect to ERISA-covered plan and IRA assets. BNP Paribas is defined to include BNP Sec Corp, which was subject to FRB's cease and desist order (along with BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA) based on unsafe and unsound banking- practices relating to BNP Paribas's FX business. BNP is defined to include its New York branch, which employed individuals who engaged in the FX misconduct, as noted in the NYDFS Consent Order.

    14. The exemption requires each BNP Affiliated QPAM to update, implement and follow certain written policies and procedures (the Policies) by the Conviction Date. These Policies are similar to the policies and procedures mandated by PTE 2015-06. In general terms, the Policies must require, and must be reasonably designed to ensure that, among other things: the asset management decisions of the BNP Affiliated QPAM are conducted independently of the corporate management and business activities of BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA; the BNP Affiliated QPAM fully complies with ERISA's fiduciary duties, and with ERISA and the Code's prohibited transaction provisions; the BNP Affiliated QPAM does not knowingly participate in any other person's violation of ERISA or the Code with respect to Covered Plans; any filings or statements made by the BNP Affiliated QPAM to regulators, on behalf of or in relation to Covered Plans, are materially accurate and complete; the BNP Affiliated QPAM does not make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with such regulators with respect to Covered Plans; the BNP Affiliated QPAM complies with the terms of this exemption; and any violation of, or failure to comply with any of these items, is corrected as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier). Any such violation or compliance failure not so corrected must be reported, upon the discovery of such failure to so correct, in writing, to appropriate corporate officers, the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent), and the independent auditor responsible for reviewing compliance with the Policies.

    15. This exemption mandates training (Training), which is similar to the training required under PTE 2015-06. In this regard, all relevant UBS QPAM asset/portfolio management, trading, legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel must be trained during the Exemption Period. Among other things, the Training must, at a minimum, cover the Policies, ERISA and Code compliance, ethical conduct, the consequences for not complying with the conditions of this exemption (including any loss of exemptive relief provided herein), and the requirement for prompt reporting of wrongdoing. The Training must be conducted by a professional who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code.

    16. As in PTE 2015-06, under this exemption, each BNP Affiliated QPAM must submit to an audit conducted by an independent auditor.8 Among other things, the auditor must test a sample of each BNP Affiliated QPAM's transactions involving Covered Plans, sufficient in size and nature to afford the auditor a reasonable basis to determine such QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training. The auditor's conclusions cannot be based solely on the Exemption Report created by the Compliance Officer, described below, in lieu of independent determinations and testing performed by the auditor.

    8 Audits covering time periods prior to the Conviction Date must be completed in accordance with the requirements of PTE 2015-06, as applicable.

    The Audit Report must be certified by the General Counsel or one of the three most senior executive officers of the BNP Affiliated QPAM to which the Audit Report applies. A copy of the Audit Report must be provided to the Risk Committee of BNP's Board of Directors. Among other things, BNP must submit to the Office of Exemption Determinations (OED), no later than two months after the Conviction Date, any engagement agreement with an auditor to perform the audit required under the terms of this exemption.

    17. This exemption requires that, as of May 30, 2018, and throughout the Exemption Period, with respect to any arrangement, agreement, or contract between a BNP Affiliated QPAM and a Covered Plan, the BNP Affiliated QPAM must agree and warrant: (i) To comply with ERISA and the Code, as applicable with respect to such Covered Plan; and (ii) to refrain from engaging in prohibited transactions that are not otherwise exempt (and to promptly correct any inadvertent prohibited transactions). This provision is enhanced relative to PTE 2015-06, in that each BNP Affiliated QPAM must now further agree and warrant to comply with the standards of prudence and loyalty set forth in section 404 of ERISA with respect to each such ERISA-covered plan. Each BNP Affiliated QPAM must also agree and warrant to indemnify and hold harmless such Covered Plan for any actual losses resulting directly from any of the following: (a) A BNP Affiliated QPAM's violation of ERISA's fiduciary duties, as applicable, and/or the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as applicable; (b) a breach of contract by the QPAM; or (c) any claim arising out of the failure of such BNP Affiliated QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a result of a violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 other than the Conviction. This condition applies only to actual losses caused by the BNP Affiliated QPAM. As noted above, the Applicant has identified a wide range of potential harm and costs that may be incurred by plans and IRAs if the BNP Affiliated QPAMs were no longer able to rely on PTE 84-14. The Department views actual losses arising from unwinding transactions with third parties, and from transitioning Covered Plan assets to third parties, to be “direct” results of violating the terms of this provision.

    18. This exemption contains specific notice requirements. In this regard, by July 29, 2018, each BNP Affiliated QPAM will provide a notice of the exemption, along with a separate summary describing the facts that led to the Conviction (the Summary), which have been submitted to the Department, and a prominently displayed statement (the Statement) (collectively, Initial Notice) that the Conviction results in a failure to meet a condition in PTE 84-14, to each sponsor and beneficial owner of a Covered Plan, or the sponsor of an investment fund in any case where a BNP Affiliated QPAM acts as a sub-advisor to the investment fund in which such ERISA-covered plan and IRA invests. All prospective Covered Plans that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a BNP Affiliated QPAM on or after the date of the Initial Notice must receive a copy of the exemption, the Summary, and the Statement prior to, or contemporaneously with, the Covered Plan's receipt of a written asset management agreement from the BNP Affiliated QPAM. The notice requirements shall operate in tandem to ensure that all Covered Plan clients receive either the Initial Notice or a subsequent notice. Disclosures may be delivered electronically.

    19. The exemption requires that each BNP Affiliated QPAM maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption have been met, for six (6) years following the date of any transaction for which such BNP Affiliated QPAM relies upon the relief in the exemption.

    20. This exemption contains several conditions not found in PTE 2015-06. First, this exemption mandates a compliance officer, a review, and an exemption report. By November 29, 2018, BNP Paribas must designate a senior compliance officer (the Compliance Officer) who will be responsible for compliance with the Policies and Training requirements described herein. The Compliance Officer must conduct an exemption review (the Exemption Review) for the period beginning on May 30, 2018,9 to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the implementation of the Policies and Training. The Compliance Officer must be a professional with extensive relevant experience with a direct reporting line to the highest-ranking corporate officer in charge of legal compliance for asset management.

    At a minimum, the Exemption Review must include review of the following items: (i) Any compliance matter related to the Policies or Training that was identified by, or reported to, the Compliance Officer during the previous year; (ii) any material change in the relevant business activities of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs; and (iii) any change to ERISA, the Code, or regulations that may be applicable to the activities of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs.

    9 Such Exemption Review must be completed with respect to the Exemption Period.

    The Compliance Officer must prepare a written report (an Exemption Report) that summarizes his or her material activities during the Exemption Period and sets forth any instance of noncompliance discovered during the Exemption Period, and any related corrective action. In each Exemption Report, the Compliance Officer must certify in writing that to his or her knowledge the report is accurate and the BNP Affiliated QPAMs have complied with the Policies and Training, and/or corrected (or are correcting) any instances of noncompliance.

    The Exemption Report must be provided to the appropriate corporate officers of BNP Paribas and each BNP Affiliated QPAM to which such report relates and to the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM. The Exemption Report must be made unconditionally available to the independent auditor. The Exemption Review, including the Compliance Officer's written Exemption Report, must be completed within three (3) months following the end of the period to which it relates.

    21. BNP Paribas must also immediately disclose to the Department any Deferred Prosecution Agreement (a DPA) or Non-Prosecution Agreement (an NPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice, entered into by BNP Paribas or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14) in connection with conduct described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 or section 411 of ERISA. BNP Paribas must also immediately provide the Department with any information requested by the Department, as permitted by law, regarding the agreement and/or conduct and allegations that led to the agreement.

    22. The exemption mandates that, among other things, each BNP Affiliated QPAM clearly and prominently informs Covered Plan clients of their right to obtain a copy of the Policies or a description (Summary Policies) which accurately summarizes key components of the BNP Affiliated QPAM's written Policies developed in connection with this exemption. If the Policies are thereafter changed, each Covered Plan client must receive a new disclosure within six (6) months following the end of the calendar year during which the Policies were changed.10 With respect to this requirement, the description may be continuously maintained on a website, provided that such website link to the Policies or Summary Policies is clearly and prominently disclosed to each Covered Plan.

    10 In the event Applicant meets this disclosure requirement through Summary Policies, changes to the Policies shall not result in the requirement for a new disclosure unless the Summary Policies are no longer accurate because of the changes.

    23. The exemption contains several defined terms. Notably, the term “BNP Paribas” is defined to include its subsidiary, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., which was identified in the FRB's cease and desist order concerning unsafe and unsound banking practices relating to BNP Paribas's FX business. The term “BNP Paribas USA” means BNP Paribas USA, Inc., and includes its New York branch, which was a party to the DFS Order.

    Statutory Findings

    24. Section 408(a) of ERISA provides, in part, that the Department may not grant an exemption unless the Department finds that such exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of affected plans and of their participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of such participants and beneficiaries.

    The Department has tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicant satisfies the statutory requirements set forth in Section 408(a) of ERISA. In this regard, the Department has tentatively determined that the exemption is administratively feasible since, among other things, a qualified independent auditor will be required to perform an in-depth audit covering, among other things, each QPAM's compliance with the exemption, and a corresponding written audit report will be provided to the Department and available to the public. The Department tentatively views the proposed temporary exemption as protective of Covered Plans given that that the exemption requires, among other things, that a senior compliance officer conduct an Exemption Review and prepare a written report that sets forth any instance of noncompliance discovered during the Exemption Period, and any related corrective action. Finally, the Department tentatively views the proposed temporary exemption as in the interest of Covered Plans since, among other things, the limited effective duration of the temporary exemption provides the Department with the opportunity to determine whether long-term exemptive relief is warranted, without causing sudden and potentially costly harm to Covered Plans, as described above in paragraph 9. Such potential costly harm includes the possible default of certain Covered Plan investments; the cost to identifying a new asset manager; and the liquidation and reinvestment costs associated with transitioning Covered Plan assets to such new asset manager.

    Notice to Interested Persons

    Notice to interested persons is by publication of this notice of proposed temporary one-year exemption in the Federal Register. All written comments and/or requests for a hearing must be received by the Department within five days of the date of publication of this proposed exemption in the Federal Register.

    All comments will be made available to the public.

    Warning:

    If you submit a comment, EBSA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment, but DO NOT submit information that you consider to be confidential, or otherwise protected (such as a Social Security number or an unlisted phone number) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can be retrieved by most internet search engines.

    General Information

    The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

    (1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

    (2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;

    (3) The proposed exemption, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

    (4) The proposed exemption, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.

    Proposed Exemption

    The Department is considering granting a one-year temporary exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (or Code), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).11 Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, this notice of proposed exemption is issued solely by the Department.

    11 For purposes of this proposed one-year temporary exemption, references to section 406 of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, should be read to refer as well to the corresponding provisions of section 4975 of the Code.

    Section I. Covered Transactions

    If the proposed one-year temporary exemption is granted, certain entities with specified relationships to BNP Paribas (hereinafter, the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs, as defined in Sections III(b) and III(c), respectively) will not be precluded from relying on the exemptive relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14 (PTE 84-14 or the QPAM Exemption),12 notwithstanding the 2015 Convictions of BNP Paribas (as defined in Section III(d)(1)) and the 2018 Conviction of BNP Paribas USA, Inc. (as defined in Section III(d)(2)).13

    12 49 FR 9494 (March 13, 1984), as corrected at 50 FR 41430, (October 10, 1985), as amended at 70 FR 49305 (August 23, 2005), and as amended at 75 FR 38837 (July 6, 2010), hereinafter referred to as “PTE 84-14” or the “QPAM Exemption.”

    13 Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 generally provides that “[n]either the QPAM nor any affiliate thereof . . . nor any owner . . . of a 5 percent or more interest in the QPAM is a person who within the 10 years immediately preceding the transaction has been either convicted or released from imprisonment, whichever is later, as a result of” certain criminal activity therein described.

    Section II. Conditions

    (a) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents other than BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA, Inc. (BNP Paribas USA)), and employees of such QPAMs and any other party engaged on behalf of such QPAMs who had responsibility for, or exercised authority in connection with the management of plan assets) did not know of, did not have reason to know of, or participate in: (1) The criminal conduct of BNP Paribas that is the subject of the 2015 Convictions; or (2) the criminal conduct of BNP Paribas USA that is the subject of the 2018 Conviction (hereinafter, collectively, the BNP Convictions). “Participate in” means the knowing approval of the misconduct underlying the BNP Convictions;

    (b) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents other than BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA, and employees of such QPAMs and any other parties engaged on behalf of such QPAMs) did not receive direct compensation, or knowingly receive indirect compensation, in connection with the criminal conduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions (the BNP Misconduct);

    (c) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs will not employ or knowingly engage any of the individuals that participated in the BNP Misconduct. “Participated in” means the knowing approval of the misconduct underlying the BNP convictions;

    (d) At all times during the Exemption Period, no BNP Affiliated QPAM will use its authority or influence to direct an “investment fund” (as defined in Section VI(b) of PTE 84-14) that is subject to ERISA or the Code and managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM with respect to one of more Covered Plans (as defined in Section III(f)) to enter into any transaction with BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA or to engage BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA to provide any service to such investment fund, for a direct or indirect fee borne by such investment fund, regardless of whether such transaction or service may otherwise be within the scope of relief provided by an administrative or statutory exemption;

    (e) Any failure of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs or the BNP Related QPAMs to satisfy Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 arose solely from the BNP Convictions;

    (f) A BNP Affiliated QPAM or a BNP Related QPAM did not exercise authority over the assets of any plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered plan) or section 4975 of the Code (an IRA) in a manner that it knew or should have known would: Further the criminal conduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions; or cause the BNP Affiliated QPAM, the BNP Related QPAM, or their affiliates to directly or indirectly profit from the criminal conduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions;

    (g) Other than with respect to employee benefit plans maintained or sponsored for its own employees or the employees of an affiliate, BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA will not act as fiduciaries within the meaning of section 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) of ERISA, or section 4975(e)(3)(A) and (C) of the Code, with respect to ERISA-covered plan and IRA assets; provided, however, that BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA will not be treated as violating the conditions of this exemption solely because it acted as an investment advice fiduciary within the meaning of section 3(21)(A)(ii) of ERISA or section 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Code;

    (h)(1) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM must continue to maintain, adjust (to the extent necessary), implement, and follow written policies and procedures (the Policies). The Policies must require, and must be reasonably designed to ensure that:

    (i) The asset management decisions of the BNP Affiliated QPAM are conducted independently of the corporate management and business activities of BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA. This condition does not preclude a BNP Affiliated QPAM from receiving publicly available research and other widely available information from a BNP Paribas affiliate;

    (ii) The BNP Affiliated QPAM fully complies with ERISA's fiduciary duties, and with ERISA and the Code's prohibited transaction provisions, in each case as applicable with respect to each Covered Plan, and does not knowingly participate in any violation of these duties and provisions with respect to Covered Plans;

    (iii) The BNP Affiliated QPAM does not knowingly participate in any other person's violation of ERISA or the Code with respect to Covered Plans;

    (iv) Any filings or statements made by the BNP Affiliated QPAM to regulators, including, but not limited to, the Department, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, on behalf of or in relation to Covered Plans, are materially accurate and complete, to the best of such QPAM's knowledge at that time;

    (v) To the best of the BNP Affiliated QPAM's knowledge at the time, the BNP Affiliated QPAM does not make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with such regulators with respect to Covered Plans, or make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with Covered Plans;

    (vi) The BNP Affiliated QPAM complies with the terms of this exemption; and

    (vii) Any violation of, or failure to comply with an item in subparagraphs (ii) through (vi), is corrected as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and any such violation or compliance failure not so corrected is reported, upon the discovery of such failure to so correct, in writing. Such report shall be made to the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM that engaged in the violation or failure, and, the independent auditor responsible for reviewing compliance with the Policies, and a fiduciary of any affected Covered Plan where such fiduciary is independent of BNP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Covered Plan sponsored by an “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14) of BNP or beneficially owned by an employee of BNP or its affiliates, such fiduciary does not need to be independent of BNP. A BNP Affiliated QPAM will not be treated as having failed to develop, implement, maintain, or follow the Policies, provided that it corrects any instance of noncompliance as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon as reasonably possible after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and provided that it adheres to the reporting requirements set forth in this subparagraph (vii);

    (2) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM will maintain, adjust (to the extent necessary) and implement a program of training during the Exemption Period, to be conducted during the Exemption Period, for all relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM asset/portfolio management, trading, legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel. The Training must:

    (i) At a minimum, cover the Policies, ERISA and Code compliance (including applicable fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions), ethical conduct, the consequences for not complying with the conditions of this exemption (including any loss of exemptive relief provided herein), and prompt reporting of wrongdoing; and

    (ii) Be conducted by a professional who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code;

    (i)(1) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM submits to an audit conducted by an independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code, to evaluate the adequacy of, and each BNP Affiliated QPAM's compliance with, the Policies and Training described herein. The audit requirement must be incorporated in the Policies. The audit must cover the Exemption Period and must be completed no later than six (6) months after the end of the Exemption Period. For time periods ending prior to the Conviction Date and covered by the audit required pursuant to PTE 2015-06,14 the audit requirements in Section I(h) of PTE 2015-06 will remain in effect. The final audit under PTE 2015-06 covering the time period from October 15, 2017 until the Conviction Date must be completed within six (6) months of Conviction Date, and the corresponding certified Audit Report must be submitted to the Department no later than 30 days following the completion of such audit; 15

    14 80 FR 20261 (April 15, 2015). PTE 2015-06 is an exemption in respect of Exemption Application D-11863 that permits BNP Affiliated QPAMs to rely on the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14, notwithstanding the 2014 Convictions.

    15 Pursuant to PTE 2015-06, the annual audit periods are from October 15th through October 14th of the following year. The audits are to be completed 6 (six) months after the end of the audit period and the Audit Report submitted to the Department within 30 days after completion. Accordingly, the last full twelve-month audit for the period October 15, 2016 through October 14, 2017 must be submitted to the Department by May 14, 2018.

    (2) Within the scope of the audit and to the extent necessary for the auditor, in its sole opinion, to complete its audit and comply with the conditions for relief described herein, and only to the extent such disclosure is not prevented by state or federal statute, or involves communications subject to attorney client privilege, each BNP Affiliated QPAM and, if applicable, BNP, will grant the auditor unconditional access to its business, including, but not limited to: Its computer systems; business records; transactional data; workplace locations; training materials; and personnel. Such access is limited to information relevant to the auditor's objectives as specified by the terms of this exemption;

    (3) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to determine whether each BNP Affiliated QPAM has developed, implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies in accordance with the conditions of this exemption, and has developed and implemented the Training, as required herein;

    (4) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to test each BNP Affiliated QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training. In this regard, the auditor must test, for each BNP Affiliated QPAM, a sample of such QPAM's transactions involving Covered Plans, sufficient in size and nature to afford the auditor a reasonable basis to determine such QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training;

    (5) For the audit, on or before the end of the relevant period described in Section I(i)(1) for completing the audit, the auditor must issue a written report (the Audit Report) to BNP and the BNP Affiliated QPAM to which the audit applies that describes the procedures performed by the auditor in connection with its examination. The auditor, at its discretion, may issue a single consolidated Audit Report that covers all the BNP Affiliated QPAMs. The Audit Report must include the auditor's specific determinations regarding:

    (i) The adequacy of each BNP Affiliated QPAM's Policies and Training; each BNP Affiliated QPAM's compliance with the Policies and Training; the need, if any, to strengthen such Policies and Training; and any instance of the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM's noncompliance with the written Policies and Training described in Section I(h) above. The BNP Affiliated QPAM must promptly address any noncompliance. The BNP Affiliated QPAM must promptly address or prepare a written plan of action to address any determination of inadequacy by the auditor regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training and the auditor's recommendations (if any) with respect to strengthening the Policies and Training of the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM. Any action taken or the plan of action to be taken by the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM must be included in an addendum to the Audit Report (such addendum must be completed prior to the certification described in Section I(i)(7) below). In the event such a plan of action to address the auditor's recommendation regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training is not completed by the time of submission of the Audit Report, the following period's Audit Report must state whether the plan was satisfactorily completed. Any determination by the auditor that a BNP Affiliated QPAM has implemented, maintained, and followed sufficient Policies and Training must not be based solely or in substantial part on an absence of evidence indicating noncompliance. In this last regard, any finding that a BNP Affiliated QPAM has complied with the requirements under this subparagraph must be based on evidence that the particular BNP Affiliated QPAM has actually implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies and Training required by this exemption. Furthermore, the auditor must not solely rely on the Exemption Report created by the compliance officer (the Compliance Officer), as described in Section I(m) below, as the basis for the auditor's conclusions in lieu of independent determinations and testing performed by the auditor as required by Section I(i)(3) and (4) above; and

    (ii) The adequacy of the Exemption Review described in Section I(m);

    (6) The auditor must notify the BNP Affiliated QPAM of any instance of noncompliance identified by the auditor within five (5) business days after such noncompliance is identified by the auditor, regardless of whether the audit has been completed as of that date;

    (7) With respect to the Audit Report, the General Counsel, or one of the three most senior executive officers of the BNP Affiliated QPAM to which the Audit Report applies, must certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the officer has reviewed the Audit Report and this exemption; that, such BNP Affiliated QPAM has addressed, corrected, remedied any noncompliance and inadequacy or has an appropriate written plan to address any inadequacy regarding the Policies and Training identified in the Audit Report. Such certification must also include the signatory's determination, that the Policies and Training in effect at the time of signing are adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this exemption and with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code;

    (8) The Risk Committee of BNP's Board of Directors is provided a copy of the Audit Report; and a senior executive officer of BNP must review the Audit Report for each BNP Affiliated QPAM and must certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that such officer has reviewed the Audit Report;

    (9) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM provides its certified Audit Report, by regular mail to: Office of Exemption Determinations (OED), 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20210; or by private carrier to: 122 C Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001-2109. This delivery must take place no later than 30 days following completion of the Audit Report. The Audit Report will be made part of the public record regarding this exemption. Furthermore, each BNP Affiliated QPAM must make its Audit Report unconditionally available, electronically or otherwise, for examination upon request by any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, other relevant regulators, and any fiduciary of a Covered Plan;

    (10) Any engagement agreement with an auditor to perform the audit required under the terms of this exemption must be submitted to OED no later than two (2) months after the Conviction Date;

    (11) The auditor must provide the Department, upon request, for inspection and review, access to all the workpapers created and utilized in connection with the audit, provided such access and inspection is otherwise permitted by law; and

    (12) BNP must notify the Department of a change in the independent auditor no later than two (2) months after the engagement of a substitute or subsequent auditor and must provide an explanation for the substitution or change including a description of any material disputes between the terminated auditor and BNP;

    (j) As of May 30, 2018 and throughout the Exemption Period, with respect to any arrangement, agreement, or contract between a BNP Affiliated QPAM and a Covered Plan, the BNP Affiliated QPAM agrees and warrants to Covered Plans:

    (1) To comply with ERISA and the Code, as applicable with respect to such Covered Plan; to refrain from engaging in prohibited transactions that are not otherwise exempt (and to promptly correct any inadvertent prohibited transactions); and to comply with the standards of prudence and loyalty set forth in section 404 of ERISA with respect to each such ERISA-covered plan;

    (2) To indemnify and hold harmless the Covered Plan for any actual losses resulting directly from: A BNP Affiliated QPAM's violation of ERISA's fiduciary duties, as applicable, and of the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as applicable; a breach of contract by the QPAM; or any claim arising out of the failure of such BNP Affiliated QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a result of a violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 other than the BNP Convictions. This condition applies only to actual losses caused by the BNP Affiliated QPAM's violations.

    (3) Not to require (or otherwise cause) the Covered Plan to waive, limit, or qualify the liability of the BNP Affiliated QPAM for violating ERISA or the Code or engaging in prohibited transactions;

    (4) Not to restrict the ability of such Covered Plan to terminate or withdraw from its arrangement with the BNP Affiliated QPAM with the exception of reasonable restrictions, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors. In connection with any such arrangements involving investments in pooled funds subject to ERISA entered into after the effective date of this exemption, the adverse consequences must relate to a lack of liquidity of the underlying assets, valuation issues, or regulatory reasons that prevent the fund from promptly redeeming an ERISA-covered plan's or IRA's investment, and such restrictions must be applicable to all such investors and be effective no longer than reasonably necessary to avoid the adverse consequences;

    (5) Not to impose any fees, penalties, or charges for such termination or withdrawal with the exception of reasonable fees, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to prevent generally recognized abusive investment practices or specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors, provided that such fees are applied consistently and in like manner to all such investors; and

    (6) Not to include exculpatory provisions disclaiming or otherwise limiting liability of the BNP Affiliated QPAM for a violation of such agreement's terms. To the extent consistent with Section 410 of ERISA, however, this provision does not prohibit disclaimers for liability caused by an error, misrepresentation, or misconduct of a plan fiduciary or other party hired by the plan fiduciary who is independent of BNP and its affiliates, or damages arising from acts outside the control of the BNP Affiliated QPAM;

    (7) By November 29, 2018, each BNP Affiliated QPAM must provide a notice of its obligations under this Section I(j) to each Covered Plan. For prospective Covered Plans that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a BNP Affiliated QPAM on or after November 29, 2018, the BNP Affiliated QPAM will agree to its obligations under this Section I(j) in an updated investment management agreement between the BNP Affiliated QPAM and such clients or other written contractual agreement.

    (k) By July 29, 2018, each BNP Affiliated QPAM will provide a notice of the exemption, along with a separate summary describing the facts that led to the Convictions (the Summary), which have been submitted to the Department, and a prominently displayed statement (the Statement) (collectively, Initial Notice) that the BNP Convictions result in a failure to meet a condition in PTE 84-14, to each sponsor and beneficial owner of a Covered Plan, or the sponsor of an investment fund in any case where a BNP Affiliated QPAM acts as a sub-advisor to the investment fund in which such ERISA-covered plan and IRA invests, and to each entity that may be a BNP Related QPAM. Effective as of the date of the Initial Notice, all prospective Covered Plan clients that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a BNP Affiliated QPAM must receive a copy of the exemption, the Summary, and the Statement prior to, or contemporaneously with, the Covered Plan's receipt of a written asset management agreement from the BNP Affiliated QPAM. Disclosures may be delivered electronically;

    (l) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs must comply with each condition of PTE 84-14, as amended, with the sole exception of the violations of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 that are attributable to the BNP Convictions;

    (m)(1) By November 29, 2018, BNP Paribas designates a senior compliance officer (the Compliance Officer) who will be responsible for compliance with the Policies and Training requirements described herein. The Compliance Officer must conduct a review for the Exemption Period (the Exemption Review), to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the implementation of the Policies and Training. With respect to the Compliance Officer, the following conditions must be met:

    (i) The Compliance Officer must be a professional who has extensive experience with, and knowledge of, the regulation of financial services and products, including under ERISA and the Code; and

    (ii) The Compliance Officer must have a direct reporting line to the highest-ranking corporate officer in charge of legal compliance for asset management;

    (2) With respect to the Exemption Review, the following conditions must be met:

    (i) The Exemption Review includes a review of the BNP QPAMs compliance with and effectiveness of the Policies and Training and of the following: any compliance matter related to the Policies or Training that was identified by, or reported to, the Compliance Officer or others within the compliance and risk control function (or its equivalent) during the previous year; the most recent Audit Report issued pursuant to this exemption or PTE 2015-06; any material change in the relevant business activities of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs; and any change to ERISA, the Code, or regulations related to fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions that may be applicable to the activities of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs;

    (ii) The Compliance Officer prepares a written report for the Exemption Review (an Exemption Report) that (A) summarizes his or her material activities during the Exemption Period; (B) sets forth any instance of noncompliance discovered during the Exemption Period, and any related corrective action; (C) details any change to the Policies or Training to guard against any similar instance of noncompliance occurring again; and (D) makes recommendations, as necessary, for additional training, procedures, monitoring, or additional and/or changed processes or systems, and management's actions on such recommendations;

    (iii) In the Exemption Report, the Compliance Officer must certify in writing that to his or her knowledge: (A) The report is accurate; (B) the Policies and Training are working in a manner which is reasonably designed to ensure that the Policies and Training requirements described herein are met; (C) any known instance of noncompliance during the Exemption Period and any related correction taken to date have been identified in the Exemption Report; and (D) the BNP Affiliated QPAMs have complied with the Policies and Training, and/or corrected (or is correcting) any instances of noncompliance in accordance with Section I(h) above;

    (iv) The Exemption Report must be provided to appropriate corporate officers of BNP Paribas and each BNP Affiliated QPAM to which such report relates, and to the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM; and the report must be made unconditionally available to the independent auditor described in Section I(i) above;

    (v) Each Exemption Review, including the Compliance Officer's written Exemption Report, must be completed within three (3) months following the end of the period to which it relates;

    (n) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM will maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption have been met, for six (6) years following the date of any transaction for which such BNP Affiliated QPAM relies upon the relief in the exemption;

    (o) During the Exemption Period, BNP Paribas: (1) Immediately discloses to the Department any Deferred Prosecution Agreement (a DPA) or Non-Prosecution Agreement (an NPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice, entered into by BNP Paribas or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14) in connection with conduct described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 or section 411 of ERISA; and (2) immediately provides the Department any information requested by the Department, as permitted by law, regarding the agreement and/or conduct and allegations that led to the agreement;

    (p) By November 29, 2018, each BNP Affiliated QPAM, in its agreements with, or in other written disclosures provided to Covered Plans, will clearly and prominently inform Covered Plan clients of their right to obtain a copy of the Policies or a description (Summary Policies) which accurately summarizes key components of the BNP Affiliated QPAM's written Policies developed in connection with this exemption. With respect to this requirement, the description may be continuously maintained on a website, provided that such website link to the Policies or Summary Policies is clearly and prominently disclosed to each Covered Plan; and

    (q) A BNP Affiliated QPAM will not fail to meet the terms of this exemption, solely because a different BNP QPAM fails to satisfy a condition for relief described in Sections I(c), (d), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (n), or (p); or if the independent auditor described in Section I(i) fails a provision of the exemption other than the requirement described in Section I(i)(11), provided that such failure did not result from any actions or inactions of BNP Paribas or its affiliates.

    Section III. Definitions

    (a)(1) The term “BNP Paribas” means BNP Paribas, S.A., the parent entity, and its subsidiary, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., but does not include any other subsidiaries or other affiliates.

    (2) The term “BNP Paribas USA” means BNP Paribas USA, Inc., and includes its New York branch;

    (b) The term “BNP Affiliated QPAM” means BNP Paribas Asset Management USA, Inc.; BNP Paribas Asset Management UK Limited; BNP Paribas Asset Management Singapore Limited; Bank of the West; First Hawaiian Bank; BancWest Investment Services, Inc.; and Bishop Street Capital Management Corp., to the extent these entities qualify as a “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in Section VI(a) 16 of PTE 84-14) and rely on the relief provided by PTE 84-14, and with respect to which BNP Paribas is an “affiliate” (as defined in Part VI(d) of PTE 84-14). The term “BNP Affiliated QPAM” excludes BNP Paribas USA, the entity implicated in the criminal conduct that is the subject of the 2018 Conviction, and BNP Paribas, the entity implicated in the 2015 Convictions.

    16 In general terms, a QPAM is an independent fiduciary that is a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or investment adviser that meets certain equity or net worth requirements and other licensure requirements and that has acknowledged in a written management agreement that it is a fiduciary with respect to each plan that has retained the QPAM.

    (c) The term “BNP Related QPAM” means any future “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in section VI(a) of PTE 84-14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84-14, and with respect to which BNP Paribas owns a direct or indirect five percent or more interest, but with respect to which BNP Paribas is not an “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d)(1) of PTE 84-14).

    (d) The term “BNP Convictions” mean the 2015 Convictions against BNP Paribas and the 2018 Conviction against BNP Paribas USA. More specifically:

    (1) The “2015 Convictions” refers to the judgments of conviction against BNP Paribas in: (A) case number 14-cr-00460 (LGS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code, Section 1701 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder, and the Trading with the Enemy Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code Appendix, Section 1 et seq., and regulations issued thereunder; and (B) case number 2014 NY 051231 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.05(1).

    (2) The term “2018 Conviction” refers to the judgment of conviction against BNP Paribas USA for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, which is scheduled to be entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) (case number 1:18-cr-61-JSR, in connection with BNP Paribas USA for certain foreign exchange misconduct (the FX Misconduct).

    (e) The term “Conviction Date” means May 30, 2018, the date that a judgment of Conviction against BNP Paribas USA is entered by the District Court in connection with the 2018 Conviction;

    (f) The term “Covered Plan” means a plan subject to Part IV of Title I of ERISA (an “ERISA-covered plan”) or a plan subject to section 4975 of the Code (an “IRA”), in each case, with respect to which a BNP Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84-14, or with respect to which a BNP Affiliated QPAM (or any BNP Paribas affiliate) has expressly represented that the manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies on the QPAM class exemption (PTE 84-14). A Covered Plan does not include an ERISA-covered plan or IRA to the extent the BNP Affiliated QPAM has expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM status or PTE 84-14 in entering into a contract, arrangement, or agreement with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA.

    (g) The term “Exemption Period” means the period from May 30, 2018 until the earlier of: (1) May 29, 2019 or (2) the date of final agency action made by the Department in connection with a new exemption application submitted by BNP Paribas for the covered transactions described herein.

    (h) The term “Plea Agreement” means the agreement that was entered into on January 19, 2018, as between BNP Paribas USA and the United States Department of Justice, and filed in the District Court, involving the FX Misconduct.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 19, 2018. Lyssa E. Hall, Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05867 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201711-1218-003 or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR part 1915, subpart F. The Standard covers provisions that address conditions and operations in shipyard employment that may produce hazards for workers. Subpart F consists of 14 sections that include housekeeping; lighting; utilities; working alone; vessel radar and communication systems; lifeboats; medical services and first aid; sanitation; control of hazardous energy; safety color code for marking physical hazards; accident prevention signs and tags; retention of Department of Transportation markings, placards, and labels; motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and maintenance; and servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels. Occupational Safety and Health of 1970 sections 2(b)(9) and 8(c) authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 651(b)(9) and 657(c).

    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.

    The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1218-0259. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017 (82 FR 45900).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1218-0259. The OMB 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-OSHA.

    Title of Collection: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard.

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0259.

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

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,871.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 285,653.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 98,905 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $2,726.

    Authority:

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

    Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05836 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS:

    Mississippi River Commission

    TIME AND DATE:

    9:00 a.m., April 16, 2018.

    PLACE:

    On board MISSISSIPPI V at City Front, New Madrid, Missouri.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    (1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the St. Louis and Memphis Districts; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.

    TIME AND DATE:

    9:00 a.m., April 17, 2018.

    PLACE:

    On board MISSISSIPPI V at Beale Street Landing, Memphis, Tennessee.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    (1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Memphis District; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.

    TIME AND DATE:

    9:00 a.m., April 18, 2018.

    PLACE:

    On board MISSISSIPPI V at City Front, Greenville, Mississippi.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    (1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Vicksburg District; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.

    TIME AND DATE:

    9:00 a.m., April 20, 2018.

    PLACE:

    On board MISSISSIPPI V at New Orleans District Dock, New Orleans, Louisiana.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    ((1) Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (2) District Commander's overview of current project issues within the New Orleans District; and (3) Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Mr. Charles A. Camillo, telephone 601-634-7023.

    Charles A. Camillo, Director, Mississippi River Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05943 Filed 3-20-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (18-026)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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:

    All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20543. Attention: Desk Officer for NASA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Lori Parker, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The information submitted by the public is a license application for those companies and individuals who wish to obtain a patent license for a NASA patented technology. Information needed for the license application in ATLAS may include supporting documentation such as a certificate of incorporation, a financial statement, a business and/or commercialization plan, a projected revenue/royalty spreadsheet and a company balance sheet. At a minimum, all license applicants must submit a satisfactory plan for the development and/or marketing of an invention. The collected information is used by NASA to ensure that companies that seek to commercialize NASA technologies have a solid business plan for bringing the technology to market.

    II. Method of Collection

    NASA is participating in Federal efforts to extend the use of information technology to more Government processes via internet. NASA encourages recipients to use the latest computer technology in preparing documentation. Companies and individuals submit license applications by completing the automated form by way of the Automated Technology Licensing Application System (ATLAS). NASA requests all license applications to be submitted via electronic means.

    III. Data

    Title: Automated Technology Licensing Application System (ATLAS).

    OMB Number: 2700—XXXX.

    Type of review: New.

    Affected Public: Public and companies.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 360.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8.0 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1983 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $169,920.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

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

    Lori Parker, NASA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05832 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2018-028] Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules.

    DATES:

    NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by April 23, 2018. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:

    Mail: NARA (ACRA); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 301-837-3698.

    You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at