Federal Register Vol. 83, No.61,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 61 (March 29, 2018)

Page Range13375-13624
FR Document

83_FR_61
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 13623 - Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 2018PDF
83 FR 13511 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; 30 CFR 550, Subpart B, Plans and InformationPDF
83 FR 13527 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
83 FR 13526 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
83 FR 13487 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member MeetingPDF
83 FR 13497 - Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 13527 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Testing Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria ConsolidationPDF
83 FR 13496 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; VacanciesPDF
83 FR 13510 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW180886, WyomingPDF
83 FR 13531 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; PXS/ADS Line Resistance ChangesPDF
83 FR 13417 - Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge ProcessPDF
83 FR 13508 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; Notice of Public Meetings and Subsistence HearingsPDF
83 FR 13516 - Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 13515 - Certain Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 13477 - Endangered Species; File No. 21233PDF
83 FR 13474 - Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 13530 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Raceway and Cable RoutingPDF
83 FR 13466 - Tuna Conventions Act; Advance Notice of Rulemaking; Regulatory Amendments to Procedures for the Active and Inactive Vessel RegisterPDF
83 FR 13463 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
83 FR 13485 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 13484 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 13483 - Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pebble ProjectPDF
83 FR 13457 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR PM2.5PDF
83 FR 13523 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
83 FR 13580 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 13494 - Government-Owned Invention; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 13499 - Announcement of Tenant Protection Voucher Funding Awards for Fiscal Year 2017 for the Housing Choice Voucher ProgramPDF
83 FR 13506 - Waivers and Alternative Requirements for the Jobs Plus Initiative ProgramPDF
83 FR 13524 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and The Clean Water ActPDF
83 FR 13474 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26-Atlanta, Georgia; Authorization of Production Activity; Kubota North America Corporation (Agricultural and Specialty Vehicles); Jefferson and Gainesville, GeorgiaPDF
83 FR 13474 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 124 (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Gramercy, LouisianaPDF
83 FR 13472 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 30 Under Alternative Site Framework; Salt Lake City, UtahPDF
83 FR 13471 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Ohio Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 13470 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 13498 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Changes, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 13473 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26-Atlanta, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; PBR, Inc. d/b/a/SKAPS Industries (Non-Woven Geotextiles); Athens, GeorgiaPDF
83 FR 13473 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 241; (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Fort Lauderdale, FloridaPDF
83 FR 13473 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 204-Tri-Cities, Tennessee; Authorization of Production Activity; Eastman Chemical Company (Acetic Anhydride and Acetic Acid); Kingsport, TennesseePDF
83 FR 13474 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39-Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity; Dallas Airmotive, Inc (Aircraft Engine Refurbishment and Disassembly); DFW Airport, TexasPDF
83 FR 13475 - Monosodium Glutamate From Indonesia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
83 FR 13475 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
83 FR 13477 - Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Opportunity To Request Administrative Review NoticePDF
83 FR 13581 - Fine Arts Committee Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 13469 - Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to the Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program StandardsPDF
83 FR 13588 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Changes in Periods of AccountingPDF
83 FR 13553 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock 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 New Equity Trading Rules To Trade Securities Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges, Including Orders and Modifiers, Order Ranking and Display, and Order Execution and Routing on Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology PlatformPDF
83 FR 13525 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery ActPDF
83 FR 13533 - New Postal ProductPDF
83 FR 13410 - Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area; Technical AmendmentPDF
83 FR 13514 - Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group Charter RenewalPDF
83 FR 13582 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Southern Utah UniversityPDF
83 FR 13583 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; DroneSeed Co.PDF
83 FR 13481 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 13431 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
83 FR 13583 - Environmental Impact Statement: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, IllinoisPDF
83 FR 13519 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Chattem Chemicals, Inc.PDF
83 FR 13479 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 13521 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Navinta LLCPDF
83 FR 13522 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Insys Manufacturing LLCPDF
83 FR 13522 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: National Center for Natural Products Research NIDA MPROJECTPDF
83 FR 13523 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: S&B Pharma, Inc.PDF
83 FR 13519 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc.PDF
83 FR 13521 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Siegfried USA, LLCPDF
83 FR 13521 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Sharp Clinical Services, INC.PDF
83 FR 13520 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Novitium Pharma, LLCPDF
83 FR 13426 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed SeasonPDF
83 FR 13428 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Authorization of an Oregon Recreational Fishery for Midwater Groundfish SpeciesPDF
83 FR 13480 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 13478 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Scoping ProcessPDF
83 FR 13520 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Lannett Company, Inc.PDF
83 FR 13487 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 13478 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
83 FR 13526 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent LicensePDF
83 FR 13493 - Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 13490 - Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 13487 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing and Collaboration; Notification of Q&A WebinarPDF
83 FR 13586 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple TTB Information Collection RequestsPDF
83 FR 13544 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CboeEDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 Describing the Operation of Orders With a Minimum Execution Quantity InstructionPDF
83 FR 13574 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 Describing the Operation of Orders With a Minimum Execution Quantity InstructionPDF
83 FR 13577 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 Describing the Operation of Minimum Quantity OrdersPDF
83 FR 13534 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 Describing the Operation of Minimum Quantity OrdersPDF
83 FR 13547 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Chapter XV, Section 2, Which Governs the Pricing for Nasdaq Participants Using The Nasdaq Options MarketPDF
83 FR 13537 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the ProShares Bitcoin ETF and the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02PDF
83 FR 13552 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Flexibly Structured OptionsPDF
83 FR 13480 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Fastener Quality Act Insignia Recordal ProcessPDF
83 FR 13517 - Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
83 FR 13442 - Bump-Stock-Type DevicesPDF
83 FR 13524 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
83 FR 13464 - Request for Information on Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle Environment; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 13375 - Importation of Fresh Cherimoya Fruit From Chile Into the United StatesPDF
83 FR 13433 - Importation of Pummelo From Thailand Into the Continental United StatesPDF
83 FR 13509 - Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and/or Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands for a Park in the Northwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NevadaPDF
83 FR 13507 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases; OKNM127909, OKNM127910, OKNM127911, OKNM127912, OKNM127913, OKNM127917, and OKNM127920, OklahomaPDF
83 FR 13482 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 13378 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
83 FR 13583 - Automation in the Railroad IndustryPDF
83 FR 13416 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 13496 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Catastrophic Resource CatalogPDF
83 FR 13526 - Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council Notice of Open MeetingPDF
83 FR 13472 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 13470 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 13481 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 13436 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
83 FR 13404 - Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northcentral United StatesPDF
83 FR 13542 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Forty-Second Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges BasisPDF
83 FR 13539 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Third Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ PlanPDF
83 FR 13533 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 13580 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to Small Business Regional Regulatory Fairness BoardsPDF
83 FR 13581 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Harris County, Tex.PDF
83 FR 13528 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Reactor Vessel Head Vent CapacityPDF
83 FR 13491 - Fiscal Year 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 13495 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 13488 - Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate; Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 13415 - Good Guidance Practices; Technical AmendmentPDF
83 FR 13440 - Medical Gas Regulation; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 13510 - Notice of the 2018 Meeting Schedule for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory CommissionPDF
83 FR 13532 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 13438 - Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, NEPDF
83 FR 13484 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best PracticesPDF
83 FR 13525 - Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period for AlaskaPDF
83 FR 13460 - Registration of Isobutanol as a Gasoline Additive: Opportunity for Public CommentPDF
83 FR 13380 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH)PDF
83 FR 13395 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 13383 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. AirplanesPDF
83 FR 13401 - Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company LLCPDF
83 FR 13414 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 13411 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 13590 - Connect America Fund Phase II Auction; Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for Auction 903PDF
83 FR 13387 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 13398 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

83 61 Thursday, March 29, 2018 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Decreased Assessment Rates: Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, 13378-13380 2018-06282 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 13481 2018-06331 Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau PROPOSED RULES Bump-Stock Type Devices, 13442-13457 2018-06292 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Importation of Fresh Cherimoya Fruit From Chile Into the United States, 13375-13378 2018-06289 PROPOSED RULES Importation of Pummelo From Thailand Into the Continental United States, 13433-13436 2018-06288 NOTICES Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program Standards, 13469-13470 2018-06341 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 13487 2018-06306 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13487-13488 2018-06312 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Indiana Advisory Committee, 13470 2018-06352 Ohio Advisory Committee, 13471-13472 2018-06353 Oregon Advisory Committee, 13470-13472 2018-06272 2018-06273 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Requests for Applications: Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; Vacancies, 13496 2018-06385 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13481-13483 2018-06271 2018-06284
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 13519-13520 2018-06321 Lannett Company, Inc., 13520 2018-06313 Novitium Pharma, LLC, 13520 2018-06318 S and B Pharma, Inc., 13523 2018-06322 Sharp Clinical Services, INC., 13521 2018-06319 Siegfried USA, LLC, 13521-13522 2018-06320 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 13519 2018-06327 Insys Manufacturing LLC, 13522 2018-06324 National Center for Natural Products Research NIDA MPROJECT, 13522-13523 2018-06323 Navinta LLC, 13521 2018-06325 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance to Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices, 13484 2018-06244 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Change in Status of an Extended Benefit Period for Alaska, 13525-13526 2018-06243 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Pebble Project, 13483-13484 2018-06369 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Ohio; Ohio NSR Fine Particulate Matter Precursors, 13457-13460 2018-06368 Registration of Isobutanol as a Gasoline Additive, 13460-13463 2018-06119 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 13395-13398 2018-06094 Airbus Airplanes, 13387-13395 2018-05019 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held By Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH), 13380-13383 2018-06095 Honda Aircraft Company LLC, 13401-13404 2018-06091 Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes, 13383-13387 2018-06092 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 13398-13401 2018-05017 Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes: Northcentral United States, 13404-13410 2018-06268 Special Flight Rules Areas: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area; Technical Amendment, 13410-13411 2018-06335 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 13411-13415 2018-06008 2018-06009 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 13436-13438 2018-06270 Amendment and Establishment of Class E Airspace: Columbus, NE, 13438-13440 2018-06246 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: DroneSeed Co., 13583 2018-06332 Southern Utah University, 13582 2018-06333 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund: Phase II Auction; Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for Auction 903, 13590-13620 2018-05142 Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process, 13417-13426 2018-06382 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 13463-13464 2018-06372 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13484-13486 2018-06370 2018-06371 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 13416-13417 2018-06279 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Catastrophic Resource Catalog, 13496-13497 2018-06277 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, ILL, 13583 2018-06329 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Requests for Information: Automation in the Railroad Industry, 13583-13586 2018-06281 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 13487 2018-06427 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Good Guidance Practices; Technical Amendment, 13415-13416 2018-06252 PROPOSED RULES Medical Gas: Public Workshop; Request for Comments, 13440-13442 2018-06251 NOTICES Guidance: Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate, 13488-13490 2018-06253 Meetings: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 13490-13491 2018-06307 Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 13493-13494 2018-06309 Fiscal Year 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives; Public Workshop, 13491-13493 2018-06260 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Expansions under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 241, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 13473-13474 2018-06349 Production Activities: Dallas Airmotive, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 39; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, 13474 2018-06347 Eastman Chemical Co.; Foreign-Trade Zone 204; Tri-Cities, TN, 13473 2018-06348 Kubota North America Corp.; Foreign-Trade Zone 26; Atlanta, GA, 13474 2018-06356 PBR, Inc. d/b/a/ SKAPS Industries, Foreign-Trade Zone 26, Atlanta, GA, 13473 2018-06350 Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 124, Gramercy, LA, 13474 2018-06355 Foreign-Trade Zone 30, Salt Lake City, UT, 13472-13473 2018-06354 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, 13497-13498 2018-06388
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Funding Awards: Housing Choice Voucher Program; Tenant Protection Voucher for Fiscal Year 2017, 13499-13506 2018-06363 Waivers and Alternative Requirements for the Jobs Plus Initiative Program, 13506-13507 2018-06361 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee, 13474-13475 2018-06375 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Reclamation Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China, 13477 2018-06344 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 13475 2018-06345 Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia, 13475-13477 2018-06346 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, 13517-13519 2018-06293 Certain Programmable Logic Controllers Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 13515-13516 2018-06377 Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, 13516-13517 2018-06378 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, Clean Water Act, 13524 2018-06360 Proposed Consent Decrees: CERCLA, 13525 2018-06338 Clean Air Act, 13523-13525 2018-06291 2018-06366
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 13508-13509 2018-06380 Oil and Gas Leases: Proposed Reinstatement of OKNM127909, OKNM127910, OKNM127911, OKNM127912, OKNM127913, OKNM127917, and OKNM127920, Oklahoma, 13507-13508 2018-06285 Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW180886, Wyoming, 13510 2018-06384 Realty Actions: Classification for Lease and/or Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands for a Park in the Northwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NV, 13509-13510 2018-06287 Millenium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council, 13526 2018-06275 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses; Approvals, 13526 2018-06310 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 13494-13495 2018-06364 Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 13495-13496 2018-06258 2018-06259 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed Season, 13426-13428 2018-06317 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Northern Rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 13431-13432 2018-06330 Fisheries off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Authorization of an Oregon Recreational Fishery for Midwater Groundfish Species, 13428-13431 2018-06316 PROPOSED RULES Tuna Conventions Act: Procedures for the Active and Inactive Vessel Register, 13466-13468 2018-06373 NOTICES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Scoping Process, 13478-13479 2018-06314 Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 13479-13480 2018-06326 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 13478 2018-06311 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 13480 2018-06315 Permit Applications: Endangered Species; File No. 21233, 13477-13478 2018-06376 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory Commission 2018 Schedule, 13510 2018-06250 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 13526-13527 2018-06457 2018-06462 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions and Combined Licenses; Amendments: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; PXS/ADS Line Resistance Changes, 13531-13532 2018-06383 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Raceway and Cable Routing, 13530-13531 2018-06374 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Reactor Vessel Head Vent Capacity, 13528-13530 2018-06261 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Testing Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Consolidation, 13527-13528 2018-06386 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 30 CFR 550, Subpart B, Plans and Information, 13511-13514 2018-06500 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fastener Quality Act Insignia Recordal Process, 13480-13481 2018-06295 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle Environment; Correction, 13464-13466 2018-06290 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 13532-13533 2018-06247 2018-06337 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 13533-13534 2018-06265 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A. (Proc. 9712), 13621-13624 2018-06598 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Charter Renewals: Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, 13514-13515 2018-06334 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Filings: Consolidated Tape Association, 13539-13542 2018-06266 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., 13534-13537 2018-06299 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 13577-13580 2018-06300 Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., 13544-13547 2018-06302 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 13574-13577 2018-06301 Cboe Exchange, Inc., 13552-13553 2018-06296 Joint Industry Plan, 13542-13544 2018-06267 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 13553-13574 2018-06339 NYSE Arca, Inc., 13537-13539 2018-06297 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 13547-13552 2018-06298 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13580 2018-06365 Requests for Nominations: Small Business Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards, 13580-13581 2018-06263 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Fine Arts Committee, 13581 2018-06342 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Union Pacific Railroad Co.; Harris County, TX, 13581-13582 2018-06262 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13586-13588 2018-06305 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Changes in Periods of Accounting, 13588 2018-06340 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13498-13499 2018-06351 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 13590-13620 2018-05142 Part III Presidential Documents, 13621-13624 2018-06598 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 61 Thursday, March 29, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0015] RIN 0579-AE13 Importation of Fresh Cherimoya Fruit From Chile Into the United States AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the regulations to allow the importation of fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile into the continental United States in accordance with a systems approach as an alternative to the current required treatment. Commercial consignments of fresh cherimoya fruit are currently authorized entry into all ports of the United States from Chile subject to a mandatory soapy water and wax treatment. The systems approach includes requirements for production site registration, low pest prevalence area certification, post-harvest processing, and inspection at the packinghouse. The fruit will also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the regulations. Fresh cherimoya fruit that does not meet the conditions of the systems approach or is imported into locations outside the continental United States will continue to be allowed to be imported into the United States subject to the current soapy water and wax treatment. This will allow for the importation of fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.

DATES:

Effective April 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-81, referred to below as the regulations or the fruits and vegetables regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Currently, pursuant to 7 CFR 319.56-4(a), fresh cherimoya (Annona cherimola) fruit from Chile may be imported into the United States provided that the shipment has undergone a soapy water and wax treatment (T102-b) in accordance with the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual to mitigate against infestation by the false red mite (Brevipalpus chilensis), is accompanied by a permit, and subjected to inspection and shipping procedures.

On April 4, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 19060-19063, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0015) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to also allow for the importation of fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile into the continental United States provided that fruit is produced in accordance with a systems approach, as an alternative to the currently required treatment.

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0015.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 3, 2016. We received 26 comments by that date. They were from importers, exporters, distributors, organizations, private citizens, and representatives of State and foreign governments. Of these, 17 were supportive of the proposed action. The remainder are discussed below, by topic.

Pest Risk Mitigations

An issue of concern to several commenters was the potential introduction of the false red mite into the United States via infested fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile. One commenter stated that the post-harvest procedures noted in the pest risk assessment (PRA) of blowing fruit with compressed air to remove dust and insects, along with selection and manual packing of the fruit, would be insufficient to reliably remove pests from the pathway of fresh fruit imported into the continental United States. Another commenter also was concerned about the testing of only two or three fruit samples from each registered production site, wanting to ensure that sample sizes would be large enough to prevent pest-infested fruit from entering citrus and grape production areas in the United States. This commenter suggested incorporating an additional checkpoint test for false red mite on random fruit samples in the packaging sites prior to clearance for export.

We note that the mitigations mentioned by the first commenter are standard industry practices, not the mitigations for false red mite (though the standard industry practices may remove some mites from the pathway). Chile will be allowed to export fresh cherimoya fruit to the United States subject to either a soapy water and wax treatment (as currently allowed), or through a systems approach based on low pest prevalence. Orchard and packinghouse inspections will be required to verify and maintain place of production freedom from false red mite. Chile is currently using the same systems approach for a number of other commodities (e.g. citrus, baby kiwi, pomegranate, and kiwi) with a high success rate, and there have been almost no findings of false red mite associated with the importation of susceptible commodities from Chile at U.S. ports of entry. Chile will be taking 100 samples from each production site to verify low prevalence; these samples will undergo pest detection and evaluation using a washing method where the fruit will be placed in a 20-mesh sieve on top of a 200-mesh sieve, sprinkled with a liquid soap and water solution, washed with water at high pressure, and washed with water at low pressure. The process will then be repeated. Then the sieve contents will undergo microscopic analysis to detect the presence of false red mite. Each shipment of fruit destined for the United States also will be sampled for false red mite, usually amounting to 150 fruit, using the same washing method. Contrary to the second commenter's assertion, many more than two or three samples will be taken to verify that false red mite is not present. The sampling will be done in Chile under the supervision of APHIS preclearance employees. The sampling rate for the fruit is designed to detect a 2 percent or greater infestation rate with 95 percent confidence.

One commenter questioned why the alternative conditions for the importation of cherimoyas was being proposed and asked if it was a reflection of cost, stating that cost-saving measures alone should not be adopted if they increase the potential for greater phytosanitary risk.

The original soapy water and wax treatment for cherimoya is older than the systems approach. Chile requested the systems approach as an option for fresh cherimoya fruit being exported to the continental United States, and we have determined that it provides an equivalent level of phytosanitary security.

One commenter expressed support for the proposed rule with the caveat that any treatments conducted be equivalent to those required domestically, and that any imported fruit not meeting proper standards upon arrival in the United States receive additional treatment so as not to waste the fruit.

The Tripartite Agreement on Phytosanitary Cooperation between USDA, Chilean Association of Fresh Fruit Exporters, and the Agriculture and Livestock Service of the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture has been in operation since 1982. This agreement requires that all fruit exported to the United States be shipped from Chile with the required phytosanitary certification (preclearance program). Under the preclearance program, the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Chile must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Chile will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans establish procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs, specify how phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country, and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. APHIS and the NPPO of Chile have an existing operational workplan for commodities imported into the United States pursuant to a systems approach; this current operational workplan will be revised to reflect the contents of this final rule. USDA offices in Chile make possible the supervision of all phytosanitary aspects of each export shipment, whether fumigated, treated with soapy water and wax, or inspected, thus providing the necessary quarantine assurances to the U.S. market. All activities related to implementation of system approaches for export are directly supervised by USDA personnel. There is sufficient oversight for all treatment of fruit bound for export from Chile to the United States.

If a commodity arrives in the United States and is found to be infested with a quarantine pest, treatment will be offered only if there is an APHIS-approved treatment available. For fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile, the only approved treatment for false red mite is the soapy water and wax treatment, which must be performed in the country of origin. As there is no APHIS-approved treatment option for infested fresh cherimoya fruit at U.S. ports of entry at this time, consignments found to be infested with quarantine pests would have to be re-exported or destroyed.

Another commenter requested that fresh cherimoya fruit produced under this systems approach not be shipped into certain States due to the exotic pest-conducive environments in the Chilean production area, which in turn would place a high risk of infestation on the States' broad range of fruit and vegetable crops.

We do not agree with this commenter. Though not unprecedented, taking this kind of action for such a minor commodity would be unusual. APHIS believes that the proposed systems approach mitigations are sufficient to provide phytosanitary protection. As previously indicated, the systems approach currently is being used for citrus, baby kiwi, pomegranate, and kiwi with a high success rate, with almost no interceptions of false red mite at U.S. ports of entry. Furthermore, from 1984 to 2013 there have been no interceptions of Brevipalpus chilensis on cherimoya from Chile.2

2 See footnote 1 for a link to the Commodity Import Evaluation Document.

Following post-harvest processing, fresh cherimoya fruit must undergo inspection and sampling to check for the presence of false red mites. Two commenters stated that checking for the pest presence in fruit should be done only in the final stages of the process during the preclearance program inspection. One of these commenters also expressed concern regarding the use of biometric sampling instead of the 2 percent currently used for phytosanitary inspections of fresh cherimoya fruit. The commenter stated that this represented a larger number of fruit and therefore would result in a greater loss of boxes from commercial batches if sampled fruit is to be discarded.

During the preclearance program inspection in Chile, any consignments containing false red mite will be rejected and the production sites will be removed from the program for the rest of that harvest season. Production sites will have to requalify as low prevalence before they can ship in the next season. With respect to the issue of biometric sampling, the proposed method is not destructive sampling. Once the biometric sample is drawn from each consignment of fruit, the fruit will be visually inspected for quarantine pests and a portion of the biometric sample must be washed with soapy water. The collected filtrate after washing must then be microscopically examined for the presence of false red mite. Fruit samples that do not contain false red mite can simply be washed and placed back into their boxes. APHIS will select the sampling rate based on the hypergeometric distribution; normally to find a 2 percent pest population, 150 fruits will be inspected. Except for very small shipments, a 2 percent straight sample will require sampling more fruit than the hypergeometric distribution would require. Again, we note that this is not destructive sampling, but merely a wash for mite, after which, uninfested fruits would be returned to their boxes.

Economic Impacts

One commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation does not provide a monetary assessment or a prediction of how the regulation would impact the price of fruit.

We do not have information on whether the systems approach allowed by this rule will lower the cost of exporting fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile to the United States, in comparison to the current soapy water and wax treatment for false red mite, or on the extent to which any cost savings may be passed on to U.S. importers. We expect cost savings due to this rule will be minimal. We also expect any increase in the quantity of fresh cherimoya fruit imported from Chile because of this rule to be limited, given that over 80 percent of Chile's fresh cherimoya fruit exports are already destined for the United States. If modest price or quantity effects for fresh cherimoya fruit imports from Chile do occur, impacts for U.S. producers will be slight because of different marketing seasons. As reported by the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center,3 the marketing season for fresh California cherimoya fruit usually starts in January and lasts until May. Fresh cherimoya fruit imports from South America (mainly from Chile) are usually in the fall.

3 This information may be viewed on the internet at http://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fruits/cherimoya/.

Miscellaneous

We have made minor, nonsubstantive changes to clarify a few provisions in the regulatory text. These editorial changes do not substantively affect the import requirements.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this final rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

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

Over 80 percent of Chile's fresh cherimoya fruit exports are to the United States. Any economic impact of this rule for U.S. entities will be minor because the volume of fresh cherimoya fruit imported from Chile is not expected to change significantly. Any effect on fresh cherimoya fruit prices received by U.S. producers will be all the more muted because of the difference in marketing seasons. As previously indicated, the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center reports that the season for fresh California cherimoya fruit usually starts in January and lasts until May. Fresh cherimoya fruit from South America (mainly from Chile) usually is imported in the fall.

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

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows fresh cherimoya fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Chile under a systems approach. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh cherimoya fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under control number 0579-0444, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

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

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

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

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

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

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

2. Section 319.56-82 is added to read as follows:
§ 319.56-82 Fresh cherimoya from Chile.

Fresh cherimoya (Annona cherimola) fruit may be imported into the United States from Chile only under the following conditions and in accordance with all other applicable provisions of this subpart. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pest: Brevipalpus chilensis mites.

(a) Commercial consignments. The fresh cherimoya fruit may be imported in commercial consignments only.

(b) The risks presented by Brevipalpus chilensis mites must be addressed in one of the following ways:

(1) Importation into the United States. The fresh cherimoya fruit are subject to treatment and certification consisting of:

(i) A soapy water and wax treatment, in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.

(ii) Each consignment of fresh cherimoya fruit must be accompanied by documentation to validate foreign site preclearance inspection after soapy water and wax treatment completed in Chile; or

(2) Importation into the Continental United States. The fresh cherimoya fruit are subject to a systems approach consisting of the following:

(i) Production site registration. The production site where the fruit is grown must be registered with the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Chile. Harvested cherimoya must be placed in field cartons or containers that are marked to show the official registration of the production site. Registration must be renewed annually.

(ii) Low-prevalence production site certification. The fruit must originate from a low-prevalence production site to be imported under the conditions in this section. Between 1 and 30 days prior to harvest, random samples of leaves must be collected from each registered production site under the direction of the NPPO of Chile. These samples must undergo a pest detection and evaluation method as follows: The leaves must be washed using a flushing method, placed in a 20-mesh sieve on top of a 200-mesh sieve, sprinkled with a liquid soap and water solution, washed with water at high pressure, and washed with water at low pressure. The process must then be repeated. The contents of the 200-mesh sieve must then be placed on a petri dish and analyzed for the presence of live B. chilensis mites. If a single live B. chilensis mite is found, the production site will not qualify for certification as a low-prevalence production site. Each production site may have only one opportunity per season to qualify as a low-prevalence production site, and certification of low prevalence will be valid for one harvest season only. The NPPO of Chile will present a list of certified production sites to APHIS. Fruit from those production sites that do not meet the requirements for certification as low-prevalence production sites may still be imported into the United States subject to treatment as listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(iii) Post-harvest processing. After harvest, all damaged or diseased fruits must be culled at the packinghouse and remaining fruit must be packed into new, clean boxes, crates, or other APHIS-approved packing containers.

(iv) Phytosanitary inspection. Fruit must be inspected in Chile at an APHIS-approved inspection site under the direction of APHIS inspectors in coordination with the NPPO of Chile following any post-harvest processing. A biometric sample must be drawn and examined from each consignment. Fresh cherimoya fruit can be shipped to the continental United States under the systems approach only if the consignment passes inspection. Any consignment that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph for inspection can still be imported into the United States subject to treatment as listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Inspection procedures are as follows:

(A) Fruit presented for inspection must be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit to specify the production site or sites in which the fruit was produced and the packing shed or sheds in which the fruit was processed. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the United States.

(B) A biometric sample of the boxes, crates, or other APHIS-approved packing containers from each consignment will be selected by the NPPO of Chile, and the fruit from these boxes, crates, or other APHIS-approved packing containers will be visually inspected for quarantine pests. If a single live B. chilensis mite is found during the inspection process, the certified low-prevalence production site where the fruit was grown will lose its certification for the remainder of the harvest season.

(v) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of fresh cherimoya fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Chile that contains an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment was inspected and found free of Brevipalpus chilensis and was grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-82(b)(2).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0444)
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-06289 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 906 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0037; SC17-906-1 FR] Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods for oranges and grapefruit handled under Marketing Order 906. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. This rule also makes administrative revisions to the subpart headings of the Order.

DATES:

Effective April 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the Order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

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

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate from $0.09, the rate that was established for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods. The decrease reflects a reduction in expenses of more than $595,000 from not funding the Mexican fruit fly control program.

The Committee met on August 8, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that they would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing their budget by more than $595,000. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

Of the total $152,920 budgeted for the 2017-18 fiscal period, major expenditures recommended by the Committee include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Compared to the previous fiscal year's budget of $751,148, budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments calculated at $150,000 (7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons assessed at $0.02 per carton), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $152,920. Funds in the reserve (currently $282,572) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35).

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

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

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

According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $17.48 per box and total shipments were 7.5 million boxes. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers (13), and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of greater than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers may be classified as large business entities.

In addition, based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $14.64 per box. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus producers may be classified as small business entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.09 to $0.02 per 7/10-weight bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.02 rate should provide $150,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.

The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that it would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing its budget by more than $595,000.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and the Research Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these committees who reviewed the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. These committees determined that all program activities were adequately funded and essential to the functionality of the Order, thus no alternate expenditure levels were deemed appropriate. Additionally, alternate assessment rates of $0.01 and $0.015 per 7/10 bushel-carton were discussed. However, it was determined that these lower assessment rates would draw too heavily from reserves, roughly $78,000 and $43,000, respectively. The proposed rate of $0.02 per 7/10 bushel-carton would draw an anticipated $2,800 from reserves, thereby leaving reserves intact for future needs.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average grower price for the 2017-18 season should be approximately $15.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.1 percent.

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

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 8, 2017, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

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

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2017 (82 FR 57164). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all Texas citrus handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending January 3, 2018, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. Two comments were received, one in support of the change, and one comment outside the scope of this action. One commenter in support of the action stated that the reduced rate is fair and continues to allow the Committee to pay its expenses. Administrative revisions to the subpart headings were included in the proposed rule. No comments were received on those changes. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906

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

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

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

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart A] 2. Redesignate “Subpart—Order Regulating Handling” as “Subpart A—Order Regulating Handling.” [Subpart Redesignated as Subpart B and Amended] 3. Redesignate “Subpart—Rules and Regulations” as subpart B and revise the heading to read as follows: Subpart B—Administrative Requirements 4. Section 906.235 is revised to read as follows:
§ 906.235 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart C] 5. Redesignate “Subpart—Container and Pack Requirements” as “Subpart C—Container and Pack Requirements.” Dated: March 23, 2018. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-06282 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1011; Product Identifier 2017-SW-004-AD; Amendment 39-19232; AD 2018-07-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-16-14 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC 135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters. AD 2013-16-14 required installing a washer in and modifying the main transmission filter housing upper part. Since we issued AD 2013-16-14, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH has extended the overhaul interval for the main transmission and determined that other models may have the same unsafe condition. This AD retains the requirements of AD 2013-16-14, adds models to the applicability, and revises the required compliance time for the modification. The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 3, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of October 9, 2013 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/technical-expert/. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1011.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2017-1011; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2013-16-14, Amendment 39-17552 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013), and add a new AD. AD 2013-16-14 applied to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters with a certain serial-numbered main transmission FS108 housing upper part (upper part), part number (P/N) 4649 301 034. AD 2013-16-14 required installing a corrugated washer in the upper part filter housing and modifying each affected upper part by machining the oil filter bypass inlet.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2017 (82 FR 51175). The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2017-0002, dated January 9, 2017 (AD 2017-0002), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC 135 and EC635 helicopters. EASA advises that some affected upper parts have been re-identified with P/N 4649 301 067 or P/N 4649 301 088 without changing the serial number. EASA further advises that Airbus Helicopters has extended the compliance time to retrofit the housing to 5,150 hours to coincide with the extended interval between transmission overhauls.

Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to retain the requirement to install a corrugated washer and modify the upper part and also proposed adding Airbus Helicopters Deutschland Model EC135P3 and Model EC135T3 helicopters and upper part P/N 4649 301 067 and P/N 4649 301 088 to the applicability and extending the compliance time for machining the upper part to 5,150 hours TIS.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016 (ASB EC135-63A-017), for Model EC135 T1, T2, T2+, T3, P1, P2, P2+, P3, and 635 T1, T2+, T3, P2+, and P3 helicopters. This service information specifies removing the oil filter element and installing a corrugated washer. ASB EC135-63A-017 also specifies reworking the affected upper part at the next repair or overhaul of the main transmission, no later than 5,150 flight hours after receipt of the service bulletin. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2017-0002 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

We also reviewed ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010, which specifies procedures for repairing the main transmission upper housing, and includes dimensions and tolerances for machining the upper part.

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

Other Related Service Information

We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, for Model EC135 T1, T2, T2+, P1, P2, P2+, and 635 T1, T2+, and P2+ helicopters. This service information specifies the same Accomplishment Instructions as ASB EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, except with a shorter compliance time to rework the affected upper part.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 236 helicopters of U.S. Registry. At an average labor rate of $85 per work hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Installing the corrugated washer requires about .5 work hour, and required parts cost about $10, for a cost per helicopter of about $53, and a cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $12,508. Machining the housing upper part requires about 5 work hours and required parts cost about $73, for a cost per helicopter of $498, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $117,528. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to be $130,036 for the U.S. operator fleet or $551 per helicopter.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that a regulatory distinction is required, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-16-14, Amendment 39-17552 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013), and adding the following new AD: 2018-07-01 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held By Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Amendment 39-19232; Docket No. FAA-2017-1011; Product Identifier 2017-SW-004-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, P3, T1, T2, T2+, and T3 helicopters with a main transmission FS108 housing upper part, part number (P/N) 4649 301 034, 4649 301 067, or 4649 301 088 and a serial number listed in Table 1 of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016 (ASB EC135-63A-017), certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as an improperly manufactured bypass inlet in the oil filter area. This condition could adversely affect the oil-filter bypass function, resulting in failure of the main transmission and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2013-16-14, Amendment 39-17552 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective May 3, 2018.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

(1) Within 3 months, remove the oil filter element and install a corrugated washer, P/N 0630100377, in the middle of the filter housing of the housing upper part as depicted in Figure 2 of ASB EC135-63A-017.

(2) Within 5,150 hours time-in-service or at the next main transmission repair or overhaul, whichever occurs first, machine the main transmission housing upper part in accordance with Annex A of ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010.

(3) Do not install a main transmission upper part, P/N 4649 301 034, 4649 301 067, or 4649 301 088, on any helicopter unless it has been modified as required by paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the procedures specified in Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(i) Additional Information

(1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/technical-expert/. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0002, dated January 9, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(j) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320 Main Rotor Gearbox.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 3, 2018.

(i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 9, 2013 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013).

(i) ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010.

(ii) Reserved.

(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/technical-expert/.

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

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 19, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-06095 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0288; Product Identifier 2017-CE-007-AD; Amendment 39-19231; AD 2018-06-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off during takeoff. This AD adds a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that attaches the exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger and requires an annual visual inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0288; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Teplik, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4196; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2017 (82 FR 51782).

We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2017 (82 FR 17594). The NPRM proposed to add a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) and, if the coupling is removed for any reason before the life limit is reached, require an inspection of the v-band coupling before reinstalling. The NPRM was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off during takeoff.

The SNPRM proposed to add to the applicability of the AD, add a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that attaches the exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger, and require an annual visual inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

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

Support of the AD Action

Michelle Prengle agrees with the AD action. She states, “I am the daughter of the pilot from which this AD is prompted. My brothers and I lost our father and stepmother in this accident. I want people to know that my father loved to fly and believed that flying was the safest form of transportation. I wish that this AD be implemented to honor what my father truly believed, that flying is the safest form of transportation. I believe it will provide one more measure that will save lives in the future.”

Request the Removal of Multi-Segment Couplings From All Airplanes

Paul Gryko recommended removal of multi-segment couplings from all airplanes and replace with one-piece couplings. The commenter discussed other airplane models that have the multi-segment coupling installed and other AD actions affecting exhaust tailpipe v-band couplings. The commenter discussed that multi-segment couplings may have different part numbers on different airplanes with different torque values. Having one one-piece coupling with the same torque value for use on all airplanes would benefit the industry. The commenter discussed the possibility of expanding the scope of this AD or issuing a different AD action.

We do not agree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD addresses the unsafe condition on those specific airplanes. Including the actions of this AD on other airplane models that may have the affected exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling installed goes beyond the scope of this AD. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

Request To Expand the Scope of the AD to All Airplanes Equipped With Continental TSIO-520 Engines

Dustin Todd requested we expand the AD to all Textron airplanes equipped with TSIO-520 engines and to require inspection of all areas of the turbocharger exhaust pipe. During a 50-hour oil change, he found a crack in the turbocharger exhaust pipe. The crack appeared to have originated beneath the coupling. Removal of the coupling is not required during 100-hour or annual inspections, so the crack could go undetected for hours or years.

We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD requires a life limit replacement and inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band couplings as installed on those affected airplanes. To include all Textron airplanes equipped with Continental TSIO-520 engines and to require inspection of all areas of the turbocharger exhaust pipe would be beyond the scope of this AD. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

Request To Withdraw the SNPRM or To Increase the Life Limit of the Couplings

David Cort commented the proposed AD is an overreaction to address one airplane affected out of 731 airplanes. The commenter believes over torqueing and the additional stress of heat expansion on the coupling caused the fatigue cracks. The commenter also noted the difficulty in accessing the coupling and applying the correct amount of torque. The commenter believes removing and reinstalling couplings by inexperienced mechanics could add to the problem. We infer the commenter wants the SNPRM withdrawn. If the FAA proceeds with the AD action, the commenter believes the compliance time should be no less than 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS).

We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD describes procedures for the correct amount of torque and the actions required by this AD must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic. The accident/incident failure data and existing AD actions demonstrate that a 500-hour life limit is appropriate for this type of multi-segment coupling.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

Request To Withdraw the SNPRM

Textron Aviation, Inc. requested we withdraw the SNPRM. The commenter stated there are no unique aspects to the engine installation on the affected airplanes or the v-band coupling installation that would justify a need for an AD specific to the affected airplanes. The commenter states an appliance specific AD would be a more appropriate approach to addressing the unsafe condition identified by the FAA for all airplanes.

We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined an unsafe condition exists on the specific airplanes affected by this AD. This AD will address the unsafe condition on the specific airplanes this AD affects. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

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

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 731 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Visual inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (Installed) .5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $42.50 Not applicable $42.50 $31,067.50 Replacement of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling 2 work-hours × 85 per hour = 170 300 470 343,570

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspection that would require removal and reinstallation of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this inspection:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (Not installed, includes removal and reinstallation) 1.5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $127.50 Not applicable $127.50

    We estimate the following costs for the installation of part number N1000897-40 exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may do this installation:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Installation of part number N1000897-40 exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $632 $802
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-06-11 Textron Aviation Inc.: Amendment 39-19231; Docket No. FAA-2017-0288; Product Identifier 2017-CE-007-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the following Textron Aviation Inc. airplanes; all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category:

    (i) Models A36TC and B36TC airplanes equipped with a turbocharged engine.

    (ii) Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture; and

    (iii) Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with StandardAero Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA1035WE.

    (2) If the one-piece v-band coupling (clamp), part number (P/N) NH1000897-40, is installed on Textron Aviation Inc. Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture, this AD does not apply to those airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 81, Turbocharging.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that may lead to detachment of the exhaust tailpipe from the turbocharger and allow high-temperature exhaust gases to enter the engine compartment, which could result in an inflight fire.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. For the purposes of this AD, the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling may also be referred to as the exhaust tailpipe v-band clamp.

    (g) Review of the Maintenance Records

    Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do a maintenance records review to determine the hours TIS of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. If unable to determine the hours TIS of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, use the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (h) Compliance Times for Repetitive Replacement of the V-Band Coupling

    Use the following compliance times in paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this AD for the repetitive replacement of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (1) If from a review of the maintenance records you can positively identify that the hours TIS for the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling is less than 500 hours TIS: Do the initial replacement within 500 hours TIS on the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling or within the next 50 hours TIS after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and replace repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS on the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling.

    (2) If from a review of the maintenance records you can positively identify that the hours TIS for the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling is 500 hours TIS or more or you cannot positively identify the hours TIS for the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling: Do the initial replacement within 50 hours TIS after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) and replace repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS on the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling.

    (i) Replacement of the Exhaust Tailpipe V-Band Coupling

    Replace the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling for the airplanes in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD at the applicable compliance time as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    Note 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (i) of this AD:

    We recommend after installation of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, you do an engine run and recheck the torque of the v-band coupling.

    (1) Models A36TC and B36TC airplanes: Replace the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling part number (P/N) N4211-375-M or P/N 5322C-375-Z with a new exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. When installing the new part, tighten the v-band coupling to 40 in-lbs., tap the periphery of the band to distribute tension, and torque again to 40 in-lbs.

    Note 2 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD:

    P/Ns N4211-375-M and P/N 5322C-375-Z are also known as P/N N4211-375M and P/N 5322C3752. The engineering drawings list the applicable part number v-band couplings as P/N N4211-375-M and P/N 5322C-375-Z; however, the parts catalog lists the applicable v-band couplings as P/N N4211-375M and P/N 5322C3752.

    (2) For Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes, as specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD:

    (i) For airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture: Replace the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling P/N U4211-375-M or P/N 4404C375-M with a new exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. When installing a new P/N U4211-375-M, tighten the v-band coupling to 60 in-lbs., tap the periphery of the band to distribute tension, and torque again to 60 in-lbs. When installing a new P/N 4404C375-M, add 20 in-lbs after the running torque is overcome. Replacement of exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling P/N U4211-375-M or P/N 4404C375-M with the one-piece v-band coupling, P/N NH1000897-40, terminates the requirements of this AD.

    Note 3 to paragraph (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD:

    P/Ns U4211-375-M and 4404C375-M may also be known as P/Ns U4211-375M and 4404C375M or 4404C-375-M.

    (ii) For airplanes equipped with STC SA1035WE: Replace the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling P/N U4211-375-M with a new exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. When installing the new part, tighten the v-band coupling to 60 in-lbs., tap the periphery of the band to distribute tension, and torque again to 60 in-lbs.

    (j) Repetitive Visual Inspection of the Installed Exhaust Tailpipe V-Band Coupling

    (1) If you remove the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling during your annual inspection or within the compliance time specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, you may do the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in lieu of the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD. If you already have the v-band coupling removed, doing the detailed inspection as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD eliminates the possibility of having to remove and reinstall the v-band coupling more than once if certain conditions are found during the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) At the next annual inspection after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 12 months after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, do a visual inspection of the installed exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. Use the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this AD.

    (i) Inspect the coupling and area around the coupling for signs of exhaust stains, sooting, or other evidence of exhaust leakage. If any of those conditions are found, remove the coupling and go to the inspection steps in paragraph (k) of this AD for inspection of a v-band coupling that has been removed.

    (ii) Inspect the coupling outer band for cracks, paying particular attention to the spot weld areas. If cracks are found, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (iii) Inspect the coupling for looseness or separation of the outer band to the v-retainer segments(s) at all spot welds. If looseness or separation of the outer band to any or multiple retainer segments(s) is found, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (iv) Inspect the coupling outer band for cupping, bowing, or crowning. If any of these conditions are found, before further flight, remove the coupling and go to the inspection steps in paragraph (k) of this AD for inspection of a v-band coupling that has been removed.

    (v) Inspect the area of the coupling, including the outer band, opposite the t-bolt for damage or distortion. If any damage or distortion is found, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (vi) Using a mirror, verify there is a space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt. If there is no space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (vii) Verify the v-band coupling nut is properly torqued as specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(vii)(A) through (C) of this AD:

    (A) For P/N N4211-375-M or P/N 5322C-375-Z exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, torque to 40 in-lbs.

    (B) For P/N U4211-375-M exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, torque to 60 in-lbs.

    (C) For 4404C375-M exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, verify the nut is secure. If not secure, before further flight, loosen and verify running torque and add 20 in-lbs to the running torque when tightened.

    (3) These inspections do not terminate the 500-hour TIS repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling and do not restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (k) Visual Inspection of a Removed Exhaust Tailpipe V-Band Coupling

    (1) If during the visual inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD you are required to remove of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling to do a more detailed inspection, you must do the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this AD. If you removed the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling during the annual inspection or within the compliance time specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, you may do the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in lieu of the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD. If you already have the v-band coupling removed, doing the detailed inspection as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD eliminates the possibility of having to remove and reinstall the v-band coupling more than once if certain conditions are found during the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (i) Use crocus cloth and mineral spirits/Stoddard solvent, to clean the outer band of the v-band coupling. Pay particular attention to the spot weld areas on the coupling. If during cleaning corrosion cannot be removed or pitting of the v-band coupling is found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (ii) Use a 10× magnifier to visually inspect the outer band for cracks, paying particular attention to the spot weld areas. If cracks are found during this inspection, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (iii) Visually inspect the flatness of the outer band using a straight edge. Lay the straight edge across the width of the outer band. The gap must be less than 0.062 inches. See figure 1 to paragraphs (k)(1)(iii) and (v) of this AD. If the gap exceeds 0.062 inches between the outer band and the straight edge, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    ER29MR18.001

    (iv) With the t-bolt in the 12 o'clock position, visually inspect the coupling for the attachment of the outer band to the v-retainer coupling segments by inspecting for gaps between the outer band and the v-retainer coupling segments between approximately the 1 o'clock through 11 o'clock position. It is recommended to use backlighting to see gaps. If gaps between the outer band and the v-retainer coupling segments are found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (v) Visually inspect the bend radii of the coupling v-retainer coupling segments for cracks. Inspect the radii throughout the length of the segment. See figure 1 to paragraphs (k)(1)(iii) and (v) of this AD. If any cracks are found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (vi) Visually inspect the outer band opposite the t-bolt for damage (distortion, creases, bulging, or cracks), which may be caused from excessive spreading of the coupling during installation and/or removal. If any damage is found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (2) If the removed exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling passes all of the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (vi) of this AD, you may re-install the same v-band coupling. After the coupling is re-installed and torqued as specified in Replacement of the V-Band Coupling, paragraph (i) of this AD, verify there is space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt. If there is no space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt, before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (3) The inspections required in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this AD only apply to re-installing the same exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling that was removed as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. It does not apply to installation of a new v-band coupling. These inspections do not terminate the 500-hour TIS repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling and do not restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.

    (4) As of May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a used exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on the airplane except for the reinstallation of the inspected exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling that was removed as specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. The Manager, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs concerning STC SA1035WE, 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 Wichita ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. If sending information directly to the manager of the Chicago ACO Branch, send it to the attention of John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, AIR-7C3 Chicago ACO Branch, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696; telephone: (847) 294-8180; fax: (847) 294-7834; email: [email protected]

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

    (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Teplik, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4196; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 20, 2018. Melvin J. Johnson, Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06092 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0902; Product Identifier 2016-NM-188-AD; Amendment 39-19224; AD 2018-06-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-03-07, which applied to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. AD 2004-03-07 required repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at a certain frame (FR), adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane; and repair as necessary. This new AD retains certain requirements of AD 2004-03-07, expands the applicability, and requires an inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel and modification or repair as applicable. This AD was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket, and by the discovery of additional cracks under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 3, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March 15, 2004 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0902.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0902; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3223; fax 206-231-3398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”). AD 2004-03-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46729). The NPRM was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, and by the discovery of additional cracks under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. The NPRM proposed to continue to require certain requirements of AD 2004-03-07. The NPRM also proposed to expand the applicability and require an inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and modification or repair as applicable. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at the FR 36 adjacent to the longitudinal beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131,-211, -21-, 213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During fatigue tests, cracks were found around the fasteners connecting the pressure panel with the flexible bracket at fuselage frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides.

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

    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [French] AD 2000-531-155(B) [which corresponds with FAA AD 2004-03-07] to require repetitive inspections of the longitudinal beams of the FR 36 pressure panel and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of a repair.

    Since that [French] AD was issued, additional cracks have been found under the beams, but in locations not covered by the required inspections. Fatigue and damage tolerance analyses were performed, the results of which indicated that all the holes in the pressure panel above all the longitudinal beams have to be cold worked.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2000-531-155(B), which is superseded, extends the applicability to all A320 family aeroplanes and requires [a special detailed inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR35 and FR36 under the longitudinal beam and] modification [or repair] of all the affected holes.

    This [EASA] AD is republished to correct the number of the superseded DGAC AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0902.

    Comments

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

    Request To Remove Reporting Requirement

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that we omit paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD, which would require operators to report any findings of cracking that exceeded the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, from the proposed AD. UAL stated that paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD is confusing and unjustified because there is no explanation for why it is required when it was not included in EASA AD 2016-0206. UAL stated the requirement to report findings in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) is redundant with the actions of paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. UAL noted that for the crack repair specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, the findings would be reported. UAL suggested the paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD required using an unconventional means to report findings that might require additional procedures and training specific to the proposed AD. UAL also stated that restricting reporting to a website may cause issues if the sender does not have access and that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, lists alternative options for reporting, like email, fax, or mail.

    We agree to remove the reporting requirement specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD from this AD. Neither Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, nor the MCAI specifically includes reporting to a website as specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD. We note that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, does include reporting within the required for compliance (RC) procedure for the repair, which indicates that reporting would be required regardless of whether reporting was called out in the MCAI. We also verified with EASA that reporting should be done as defined in the service information. However, we have determined that a specific reporting requirement is not necessary. As stated by the commenter, operators will report findings to obtain the repair, which is specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. We have removed paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) from this AD and revised paragraph (k)(2) of this AD to include the information that was in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. We have also added paragraph (n) to this AD to specify that reporting is not required for this AD and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    Request To Refer to Latest Service Information

    Two commenters requested that we refer to the latest service information. UAL requested that we update paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, which corrects an error with the fastener lengths for part number (P/N) EN6115K3. We infer that UAL intended to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, because there is no Revision 02 for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, and because P/N EN6115K3 is referenced in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017. Airbus requested that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, in the proposed AD.

    We agree to refer to the latest service information in this AD. In addition to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, we have also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, which updates kit information and figures among other minor changes. We have revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD accordingly. We have also provided credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; in paragraphs (o)(3)(ii) and (o)(3)(iv) of this AD, respectively.

    Request To Include Additional Airplane Models in the Applicability

    Airbus requested that Model A320-215 and Model A320-216 airplanes be in included in the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter noted that these airplane models are included in the MCAI.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We have not certified Model A320-215 airplanes for operation in the U.S., and therefore, we did not include that model in the applicability of this AD. We did not include Model A320-216 airplanes in the applicability of this AD because the MCAI was already added to the required airworthiness action list (RAAL) for Model A320-216 airplanes. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise Service Bulletin Descriptions in the Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 Paragraph in the Preamble of the NPRM

    Airbus stated that the proposed AD identifies the means of inspection, i.e., rototest inspection, using three different wordings in the descriptions of the service bulletins specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM. Airbus also stated that Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, no longer contains a rototest inspection requirement. In addition, Airbus noted that Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, does not contain repair instructions. We infer the commenter is requesting that we revise the service bulletin descriptions in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM.

    We acknowledge the description of the rototest inspection is different for each service bulletin specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM. In the NPRM, we matched the description of the inspection as given in each service bulletin specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph. We have revised the description of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, to remove the reference to an inspection and repair.

    Request To Clarify What Prompted the Proposed AD

    Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to clarify that the proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in an additional area. Airbus stated that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD describes only the fatigue test results that prompted AD 2004-03-07.

    We agree to revise paragraph (e) of this AD for clarity. This AD was prompted by the original report of cracking and the additional report. We have revised paragraph (e) of this AD to include the additional cracking that prompted the issuance of this AD.

    Request To Revise Repair Language in Paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the Proposed AD

    Airbus requested that we revise the language in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, which specifies to repair any cracking in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. Airbus stated that this service information does not provide direct repair instructions and instead specifies to contact Airbus.

    We agree to clarify the language in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD (which corresponds with paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD). Paragraph (k)(2) of this AD also specifies that where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), operators must request approval of repair instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, and accomplish the repair accordingly within the compliance time specified in those instructions. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Include Wording From the MCAI in Paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of the Proposed AD

    Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of the proposed AD. Airbus stated the wording is similar to paragraph (9) of the MCAI except that the important wording “in accordance with Airbus approved instructions that identify the repair as technically equivalent to the accomplishment of Airbus SB A320-53-1240 or SB A320-53-1263” is omitted.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. The intent of paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of this AD is to obtain corrective actions from the manufacturer that are approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). These approved instructions will provide an equivalent level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002. The service information describes procedures for repairing cracking.

    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, which describe procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, by cold working the attachment holes under the longitudinal beam at FR 36 for airplanes on which no cracking was found. Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016 also includes related investigative action (e.g., high frequency eddy current (rototest) inspection of all the removed fastener holes) and corrective actions (e.g., repair). These documents are distinct since they are different revision levels.

    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; and A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, which describe procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including related investigative actions (e.g., eddy current rotating probe inspection of the fastener holes) and corrective actions (e.g., repair), by adding a doubler and a filler, and cold expansion of the holes under the longitudinal beam at FR 36 for airplanes on which cracking was found. These documents are distinct because they are different revision levels.

    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection (rotating probe) for cracking of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and repair of any crack.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 737 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection [Retained from AD 2004-03-07] Up to 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $170 per inspection cycle Up to $125,290 per inspection cycle. Inspection [new proposed requirement] 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 $0 $1,105 $814,385.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these modifications:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Modification Up to 213 work-hours × $85 per hour = $18,105 Up to $8,510 Up to $26,615.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004), and adding the following new AD: 2018-06-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-19224; Docket No. FAA-2017-0902; Product Identifier 2016-NM-188-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, except for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 151574 was embodied in production.

    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, and by the discovery of additional cracks under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at the FR 36 adjacent to the longitudinal beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection and Follow-on Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 2004-03-07, with no changes.

    (1) For Model A320-211, -212, and -231 series airplanes having serial numbers 0002 through 0107 inclusive, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21202/K1432 has been incorporated in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, has been incorporated in service: Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, do a rotating probe inspection on airplanes with a center fuel tank, or a detailed inspection on airplanes without a center fuel tank, to detect cracking around the fasteners that attach the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002.

    (2) If no crack is detected by the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles for airplanes without a center fuel tank, and at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight cycles for airplanes with a center fuel tank.

    (h) Retained Corrective Actions, With Specific Delegation Approval Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of AD 2004-03-07, with specific delegation approval language.

    (1) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the affected structure by accomplishing all applicable actions in accordance with paragraphs 3.B. through 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002. Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles for airplanes without a center fuel tank, and at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight cycles for airplanes with a center fuel tank. For any area where cracking is repaired, the repair constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection of that area.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030 references Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, as an additional source of service information for certain repairs.

    (2) If Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002, specifies to contact the manufacturer for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Retained Optional Terminating Action, With Revised Compliance Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD 2004-03-07, with revised compliance language, to provide optional terminating action for paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. For Model A320-211, -212, and -231 series airplanes having serial numbers 0002 through 0107 inclusive, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21202/K1432 has been incorporated in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, has been incorporated in service: Modification, before the effective date of this AD, of the structure around the fasteners that attach the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, by accomplishing all applicable actions in accordance with paragraphs 3.A. through 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, constitutes terminating action for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection

    For all airplanes, except for airplanes identified in paragraph (l) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection for cracking of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016.

    ER29MR18.007 ER29MR18.008 ER29MR18.009 ER29MR18.010 (k) On-Condition Actions

    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no cracking is found, or cracking is found that is within the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016: Before further flight, modify the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017; or Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, as applicable. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017; or Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017; specify to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish the repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.

    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any cracking is found that exceeds the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016: Before further flight, repair any cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), before further flight, request approval of repair instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, and accomplish the repair accordingly within the compliance time specified in those instructions. If no compliance time is defined in the repair instructions, accomplish the repair before further flight.

    (l) Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For Model A319 and Model A320 series airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1193 have been embodied and the airplane has accumulated 33,000 flight cycles or 66,000 flight hours or more since the airplane's first flight on the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for approved repair instructions and within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the repair accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. If no compliance time is defined in the repair instructions, accomplish the repair before the next flight.

    (m) Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    (1) Modification of an airplane as specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii), or (m)(1)(iii) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for that airplane only.

    (i) Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (ii) Modification of an airplane prior to the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; as applicable.

    (iii) Modification of an airplane using instructions obtained in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.

    (2) Repair of an airplane as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD does not include that requirement.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 15, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-03-07) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, dated January 5, 2000; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, dated January 5, 2000.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, dated March 19, 2015.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through (o)(3)(iv) of this AD, for that airplane only.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, dated March 19, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, dated March 19, 2015.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.

    (4) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, dated March 19, 2015; or Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, dated March 19, 2015.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraphs (k)(2) and (n) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0902.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3223; fax 206-231-3398.

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD.

    (r) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 3, 2018.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05019 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0940; Product Identifier 2017-SW-058-AD; Amendment 39-19233; AD 2018-07-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor blade (MRB) tip cap for disbonding. This AD is prompted by a report of the in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective April 13, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 13, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by May 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0940; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800- 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0940.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

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

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2017-0176-E, dated September 14, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. EASA advises of an in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap on an AW109SP helicopter where the pilot was able to safely land the helicopter. EASA further advises that an investigation determined the cause as incorrect bonding procedures used between specific dates and identified the affected MRBs by part number and serial number. According to EASA, this condition could result in loss of an MRB tip cap, increased pilot workload, and reduced control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the MRB tip caps and replacing certain part-numbered MRBs.

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

    FAA's Determination

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Leonardo Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 109EP-157 for Model A109E helicopters, EASB No. 109S-077 for Model A109S helicopters, and EASB No. 109SP-116 for Model AW109SP helicopters, all dated September 8, 2017. Leonardo Helicopters has also issued EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017, for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. This service information identifies certain part-numbered and serial-numbered MRBs for applicability and describes procedures for tap inspecting the tip cap for disbonding.

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

    AD Requirements

    For helicopters with an MRB part number 709-0104-01-111 with serial number 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485 installed, this AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 hours TIS, tap inspecting the MRB tip cap for disbonding and, if there is disbonding, removing the MRB from service before further flight. If there is no disbonding on any of the inspections, this AD requires removing the MRB from service within 25 hours TIS. After the effective date of this AD, this AD prohibits installing these serial-numbered MRBs on any helicopter.

    For all other helicopters, this AD requires, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, tap inspecting the MRB tip cap for disbonding. If there is any disbonding, this AD requires removing the MRB from service before further flight. The repetitive inspections required for these MRBs would no longer be required after the MRB accumulates 400 hours TIS.

    Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Model A109LUH helicopters, while this AD does not as that model helicopter is not type-certificated in the U.S. The EASA AD requires that you contact Leonardo Helicopters, and this AD does not.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 130 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

    At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Tap inspecting the MRB tip caps will require 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a cost of $11,050 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. If required, replacing one MRB will require 4 work-hours and required parts will cost $89,179, for a cost per helicopter of $89,519.

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

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the corrective actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS and 25 hours TIS.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-07-02 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19233; Docket No. FAA-2017-0940; Product Identifier 2017-SW-058-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model A109E, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, certificated in any category:

    (1) With a main rotor blade (MRB) part number (P/N) 709-0104-01-111 with a serial number (S/N) 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485;

    (2) With an MRB with a P/N and S/N listed in Table 1 to paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, with 400 or fewer hours time-in-service (TIS) since first installation on a helicopter; and

    ER29MR18.000

    (3) With an MRB P/N 709-0104-01-101 with a S/N K101 or DA38586004-1, or P/N 709-0104-01-111 with a S/N P451, P460, Q553, Q557, Q587, Q695, Q832, R2080, R2212 or V699, with 400 or fewer hours TIS since maintenance on the tip cap by Finmecannica between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

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

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 13, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) For helicopters listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD:

    (i) Within 5 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 hours TIS, using a tap hammer or equivalent, tap inspect each MRB tip cap for disbonding in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) EASB No. 109S-077, dated September 8, 2017; EASB No. 109SP-116, dated September 8, 2017; or EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017; as applicable for your model helicopter. If there is any disbonding, before further flight, remove the MRB from service.

    (ii) Within 25 hours TIS, remove the MRB from service.

    (2) For helicopters listed in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this AD, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, using a tap hammer or equivalent, tap inspect each MRB tip cap for disbonding in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters EASB No. 109EP-157, dated September 8, 2017; EASB No. 109S-077, dated September 8, 2017; EASB No. 109SP-116, dated September 8, 2017; or EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017; as applicable for your model helicopter. If there is any disbonding, before further flight, replace the MRB.

    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an MRB P/N 709-0104-01-111 with a S/N 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485 on any helicopter.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0176-E, dated September 14, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0940.

    (h) Subject

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

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109EP-157, dated September 8, 2017.

    (ii) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109S-077, dated September 8, 2017.

    (iii) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109SP-116, dated September 8, 2017.

    (iv) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017.

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

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

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 21, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06094 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0711; Product Identifier 2017-NM-003-AD; Amendment 39-19227; AD 2018-06-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame, which severed the inner chord and web. This AD requires inspecting the fuselage frame for existing repairs, repetitive inspections, and applicable repairs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0711.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0711; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2017 (82 FR 34888). The NPRM was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame, which severed the inner chord and web. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the fuselage frame for existing repairs, repetitive inspections, and applicable repairs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at station (STA) 1640, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Comments

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

    Support for the NPRM

    Aviation Partners Boeing concurs with the content of the NPRM.

    Request To Clarify Certain Exceptions

    Boeing asked that we clarify the service information exceptions in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD by noting that Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, is subject to this exception only if applicable (if winglets are installed on the airplane). Boeing also stated that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD should put the required compliance time “after the effective date of this AD” in quotations to designate the content being substituted for the quoted service information compliance time statements.

    We agree with the commenter's request. We have separated the exceptions for the referenced service information for clarification. We have removed the reference to the APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, from paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. We have also added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD to specify the exception for the APB service bulletin. Paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD specify exceptions to the referenced service information instructions, and are intended to be used to determine compliance, relative to the effective date of this AD instead of the issue date of the service information. We have also included the requested quotations in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD.

    Request To Clarify Inspection Location

    United Airlines (UAL) asked that the actions identified in Figures 5 and 6, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, be clarified. UAL stated that while Figures 5 and 6 correctly depict the required inspection areas, the task associated with circle action “2” for each figure specifies a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, which cannot be done around the fasteners common to the inner chord strap. UAL asked that this discrepancy be addressed in the AD in order to avoid the need for approval of requests for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

    We agree with the commenter's request, for the reason provided. We have added paragraph (h)(4) to the exceptions in this AD to clarify that an HFEC inspection of the two fasteners located below the lower edge of the intercostal strap at the locations specified in Figures 5 and 6, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, is not required by this AD.

    Request To Clarify Compliance Timeframe

    Delta Airlines (DAL) asked that we clarify the language used in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” should be clarified by inserting the word “date” after “issue” to match the compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.

    We agree with the commenter's request to include the word “date” in the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” as corrected in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, because it was inadvertently omitted in the proposed AD. The same language is included in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.

    Request To Clarify Compliance Determination

    DAL asked that a new paragraph be added to paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify using the phrase “at the original issue date of this service bulletin” to determine airplane configuration, and to provide credit for inspections done before the effective date of the AD. DAL added that these changes would avoid the need for operators to request AMOCs.

    We agree to clarify. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD and included similar language in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify that the exceptions apply to both compliance times and airplane configurations. In addition, paragraph (f) of this AD requires compliance with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Therefore, paragraph (f) of this AD already gives credit for inspections done before the effective date of this AD.

    Request To Clarify Airplane Groups

    FedEx Express (FedEx) and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE) asked that we revise the proposed AD to specify the inspections, methods, and compliance times given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, but under a different group designation for the FedEx fleet of Model 757-200 airplanes. The commenters stated that these airplanes were converted by VT MAE supplemental type certificate (STC) ST03562AT to a configuration similar to that of Model 757-200SF airplanes (identified as Groups 2 and 5), and that FedEx's fleet is therefore no longer configured as passenger airplanes. FedEx stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, identifies the FedEx Model 757-200 fleet as Groups 1 and 4, and that the inspection areas defined for these groups have been modified in accordance with the STC and are no longer applicable.

    We agree with the commenters' requests. The VT MAE STC modification to the STA 1640 frame is identical to the modification of Boeing 757-200 special freighter airplanes; the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, as listed under different airplane groups should be used for the FedEx fleet. We have added paragraph (g)(3) to this AD to clarify the requirements for those airplanes.

    Request To Add Affected AD

    Boeing asserted that AD 2006-11-11, Amendment 39-14615 (71 FR 30278; May 26, 2006) (“AD 2006-11-11”), would affect the actions of the proposed AD and asked that we add that AD to paragraph (b) of this AD (“Affected ADs”). Boeing added that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, was approved as an AMOC to AD 2006-11-11 for the inspections of the inboard chord and inboard chord strap in the area around stringer 14, which is common to part of 53-60-15 listed in Section 9 of the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document.

    We acknowledge the commenter's rationale for including AD 2006-11-11 in paragraph (b) of this AD. However, paragraph (b), “Affected ADs,” is intended to include other affected ADs, but not all related ADs. It is primarily used to reference superseded ADs and other ADs that are terminated, in whole or in part, by requirements in a given AD. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.

    Request To Change Corrective Actions

    FedEx asked that repetitive inspections of a repair done for a crack finding be required only based on the original equipment manufacturer/STC holder/FAA requirements for that repair. FedEx also asked that the repetitive inspections be terminated for the portion of the inspection area covered by the repair.

    We do not agree with the commenter's requests. This AD requires repairing cracks using a method approved by the FAA or Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), and any relief or required follow-on actions will be included in those approved instructions. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the fuselage frame for existing frame repairs, repetitive high frequency eddy current and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in specified areas with no existing frame repair, and repair of any cracking.

    We also reviewed APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017. This service information provides compliance times for accomplishing the procedures identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, for airplanes on which APB blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection for existing frame repairs 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $51,510. Repetitive high and low frequency inspections for Groups 1 through 3 airplanes (598 airplanes) 48 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,080 per inspection cycle 0 4,080 $2,439,840 per inspection cycle. Repetitive high and low frequency inspections for Groups 4 and 5 airplanes (8 airplanes) 26 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,210 per inspection cycle 0 2,210 $17,680 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-06-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19227; Docket No. FAA-2017-0711; Product Identifier 2017-NM-003-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 3, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in the fuselage frame at station (STA) 1640, which severed the inner chord and web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at STA 1640, 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) Actions Required for Compliance

    (1) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes on which Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate ST01518SE: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.

    (3) For airplanes that have been converted from passenger to freighter configuration in accordance with VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE) Supplemental Type Certificate ST03562AT: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, refers to Group 1 airplanes, the tasks identified under Group 2 airplanes must be done instead; where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, refers to Group 4 airplanes, the tasks identified under Group 5 airplanes must be done instead.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, specifies contacting Boeing for instructions, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (3) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (4) Where Figures 5 and 6, Step 2, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, specify a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any crack in the fuselage frame inner chord forward bend radius and around the fasteners, between the two fasteners above and below the edges of the intercostal strap, this AD does not require inspecting around the two fasteners located below the lower edge of the intercostal strap at stringer 13.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017.

    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-05017 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0223; Product Identifier 2018-CE-007-AD; Amendment 39-19230; AD 2018-06-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company LLC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes. This AD requires incorporating a temporary revision into the airplane flight manual and replacing faulty power brake valves upon condition. This AD was prompted by reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective April 13, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 13, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by May 14, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honda Aircraft Company LLC, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410; telephone (336) 662-0246; internet: http://www.hondajet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0223.

    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-2018-0223; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5107) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Samuel Kovitch, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5570; fax: (404) 474-5605; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We received reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during landing deceleration on several Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes. Investigation revealed that the power brake valve (PBV) housing design drawing dimension for a bore diameter, which serves as an O-ring gland outer diameter, is oversized from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) specification guidelines for O-ring gland dimensions. The oversized bore allows back-up ring extrusion damage during normal operating hydraulic pressure in the valve, O-ring deformation/damage, and internal leakage of hydraulic pressure within the PBV from the master cylinder brake lines. The damage to the back-up ring and O-ring worsens during operation and causes the internal leakage rate of the PBV brake master cylinder lines to increase over time. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the PBV, which could cause degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual and Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018. Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) describes procedures for performing pilot checks of the braking system during ground operations before every flight and before every landing and includes instructions for corrective actions if any indication of a leaking PBV is found. Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018, describes procedures for replacing a defective PBV with an improved design PBV. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires inserting a temporary revision into the AFM, which may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. This AD also requires replacing the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with an improved PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009, if a defective PBV is detected during the required pilot checks as specified in the temporary revision. In addition, this AD provides an optional terminating action for the temporary revision into the AFM by replacing the installed PBV with the improved PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring replacement of the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with an improved part, which will constitute terminating action for the temporary revision to the AFM. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement of the PBV would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior comment on the merit of the replacement.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the PBV could cause degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0223 and Product Identifier 2018-CE-007-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Insert temporary revision into the airplane flight manual 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 Not applicable $85 $6,120

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the pilot check of the braking system during ground operations before every flight and before every landing. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace the power brake valve 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,700 $21,878 $23,578
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-06-10 Honda Aircraft Company LLC: Amendment 39-19230; Docket No. FAA-2018-0223; Product Identifier 2018-CE-007-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 13, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes, serial numbers 42000011 through 4200089, that:

    (1) have power brake valve, part number (P/N) HJ1-13243-101-005 or HJ1-13243-101-007, installed; and

    (2) are certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to detect failure of the power brake valve. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Insert Temporary Revision into the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Before further flight after April 13, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) insert Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, into the Honda Aircraft Company (Honda) HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) (the temporary revision). This insertion and the steps therein may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

    (h) Replace the Power Brake Valve (PBV)

    As of and any time after the effective date of this AD, if the PBV fails any of the pilot checks specified in the temporary revision, before further flight, replace the PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with the improved design PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009. Do the replacement using the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018. Before further flight after installing P/N HJ1-13243-101-009, remove the temporary revision from the Honda HA-420 AFM.

    (i) Optional Terminating Action for Inserting the AFM Temporary Revision/Pilot Checks

    (1) Instead of inserting the temporary revision or at any time after inserting the temporary revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, you may replace the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with the improved design PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009. The replacement must be done using the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018. Before further flight after installing P/N HJ1-13243-101-009, remove the temporary revision from the Honda HA-420 AFM.

    (2) If you choose to follow the temporary revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD instead of the optional replacement in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, the on-condition replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD is still required before further flight.

    (j) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Honda Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.

    (k) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits for this AD are prohibited.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with this AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Kovitch, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5570; fax: (404) 474-5605; email: [email protected]

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 510(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

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

    (i) Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual.

    (ii) Honda Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018.

    (3) For Honda Aircraft Company LLC service information identified in this AD, contact Honda Aircraft Company LLC, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410; telephone (336) 662-0246; internet: http://www.hondajet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 19, 2018. Melvin J. Johnson, Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06091 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9555; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2] Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northcentral United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends and removes multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States as part of the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) and due to the decommissioning of the Tiverton, OH, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid. This action also incorporates NAV CANADA's amendment to one of the airways that crosses into Canada's airspace.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901, 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:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    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 the 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 modifies the NAS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 (82 FR 11859; February 27, 2017). The NPRM proposed to amend and remove multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States to reflect and accommodate route changes being made as part of the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex Project airspace redesign effort. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

    Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA initiated a project for decommissioning the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME due to the land-lease for the navigation aid expiring and not being renewed. With the planned decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME, several of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM were impacted and required additional amendment. Additionally, NAV CANADA amended one of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM that crosses into Canada's airspace. That NAV CANADA amendment required the FAA to adjust the proposed amendment to the airway. Lastly, the FAA reviewed the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM and the Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project redesign and determined the two activities were in fact independent of each other and not connected. The airway amendments proposed in the NPRM support the FAA's NextGen efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS.

    Since several airway amendments proposed in the NPRM required further amendment due to the decommissioning of Tiverton VOR/DME and NAV CANADA's amendment to one of the airways, and the NPRM characterization required clarification that the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM in fact supported the FAA's NextGen efforts independent from the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project activities, the FAA determined it was necessary to supplement the proposal and reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

    The FAA therefore published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 (82 FR 35918; August 2, 2017). The SNPRM proposed to amend three VOR Federal airways in northcentral United States to reflect additional amendments required by the planned decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME navigation aid and amend one VOR Federal airway to reflect NAV CANADA's additional amendment to the airway within Canada's airspace. The remaining VOR Federal airway amendments and removals proposed in the NPRM published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11859, February 27, 2017) were unchanged. The SNPRM also clarified the FAA was undertaking this action in support of its NextGen efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

    Discussion of Comment

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) contended that, for those VOR NAVAIDs that are to be decommissioned, and for those airways that are correspondingly removed, the FAA should create an RNAV waypoint at the previous NAVAID location and retain all fixes and intersections along that route by amending their definition to that of an RNAV waypoint. Their concern was that with the removal of much of the route structure and their defining fixes, there would be a gap in how pilots could navigate through the area and how they communicate their planned route of flight to air traffic control unless a waypoint system remained.

    As addressed in the NPRM, and supported in AOPA's comment, the FAA is retaining the current fixes contained within the airspace area affected by this action and converting them into RNAV waypoints that will remain in place to assist pilots and air traffic controllers already familiar with them, for navigation purposes. Additionally, the FAA is establishing a waypoint within the immediate vicinity of the Tiverton VOR/DME location (60 feet) to further assist pilots navigating through the airspace affected by the Tiverton VOR/DME being decommissioned.

    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.

    Difference From NPRM and SNPRM

    The amendment to V-14 is revised to remove the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Dunkirk, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be removed, and the airway segment between the Dunkirk, NY, VOR/DME and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be retained, were removed in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26987, June 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0107.

    The amendment to V-464 is revised to remove the airway in its entirety. The airway segment between the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be retained, was removed in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26987, June 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0107.

    The amendment to V-522 remains to remove the airway in its entirety. However, the airway was amended in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26987, June 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0107. The existing airway to be removed extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC.

    Lastly, minor editorial corrections have been made to a few of the airway descriptions for standardization. These corrections include removing the word “via” when used between the first and second airway points listed and changing punctuation (commas to semi-colons) between airway points contained in the descriptions. With the exception of the above noted changes and minor editorial corrections, this rule is the same as that published in the NPRM and SNPRM.

    The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-2, V-5, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-11, V-14, V-26, V-30, V-38, V-43, V-45, V-47, V-59, V-75, V-84, V-92, V-96, V-103, V-116, V-126, V-133, V-170, V-188, V-210, V-221, V-232, V-233, V-450, V-493, and V-542. Additionally, this action removes VOR Federal airways V-40, V-98, V-176, V-297, V-353, V-383, V-396, V-406, V-416, V-418, V-426, V-435, V-443, V-464, V-467, V-486, V-522, V-523, V-525, and V-584. These VOR Federal airway amendments and removals support the FAA's ongoing NextGen efforts and planned decommissioning of the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME, and are outlined below.

    V-2: V-2 extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and Gardner, MA, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-5: V-5 extends between the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-6: V-6 extends between the Oakland, CA, VORTAC and DuPage, IL, VOR/DME; between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 271° radials (NILES fix) and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and La Guardia, NY, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within restricted areas R-4803, R-4813A, and R-4813B when active. This rule removes the airway segments between the intersection of the Gipper, MI, VORTAC 092° and Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME 196° radials (MODEM fix) and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. Additionally, this rule removes the exclusion statement for the airspace within restricted areas R-4803, R-4813A, and R-4813B. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-8: V-8 extends between the intersection of the Seal Beach, CA, VORTAC 266° and Ventura, CA, VOR/DME 144° radials (DOYLE fix) and the Washington, DC, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-10: V-10 extends between the Pueblo, CO, VORTAC and the intersection of the Bradford, IL, VORTAC 058° and Joliet, IL, VORTAC 287° radials (PLANO fix); and between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 271° radials (NILES fix) and the Lancaster, PA, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-11: V-11 extends between the Brookley, AL, VORTAC and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 038° and Carleton, MI, VORTAC 262° radials (CRUXX fix). This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, 038° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 273° radials (EDGEE fix) and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 038° and Carleton, MI, VORTAC 262° radials (CRUXX fix). The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-14: V-14 extends between the Chisum, NM, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and Norwich, CT, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-26: V-26 extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-30: V-30 extends between the Badger, WI, VORTAC and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Solberg, NJ, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-38: V-38 extends between the Moline, IL, VORTAC and Cape Charles, VA, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 091° and Rosewood, OH, VORTAC 334° radials (WINES fix) and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-40: V-40 extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME 077° and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC 177° radials (CUTTA fix). V-40 is removed in its entirety.

    V-43: V-43 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. The unaffected portion of the existing airway remains unchanged.

    V-45: V-45 extends between the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME and Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within restricted areas R-5502A and R-5502B. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal removes the exclusion statement for the airspace within restricted areas R-5502A and R-5502B. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-47: V-47 extends between the Pine Bluff, AR, VOR/DME and Pocket City, IN, VORTAC; and between the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME, and corrects the state location of the Cincinnati VORTAC to reflect “Kentucky”. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-59: V-59 extends between the Pulaski, VA, VORTAC and Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME and Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-75: V-75 extends between the Morgantown, WV, VORTAC and the intersection of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 325° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 325° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-84: V-84 extends between the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME and Flint, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and Syracuse, NY, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and Flint, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-92: V-92 extends between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 127° radials (BEBEE fix) and the Armel, VA, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 127° radials (BEBEE fix) and the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC; and between the Goshen, IN, VORTAC and Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-96: V-96 extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 071° and Flag City, OH, VORTAC 289° radials (TWERP fix) and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-98: V-98 extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Carleton, MI, VORTAC 243° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 321° radials (MIZAR fix). V-98 is removed in its entirety.

    V-103: V-103 extends between the Chesterfield, SC, VOR/DME and Lansing, MI, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Akron, OH, VOR/DME and Lansing, MI, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-116: V-116 extends between the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 092° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 013° radials (WILLA fix) and the Sparta, NJ, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 092° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 013° radials (WILLA fix) and the Erie, PA, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-126: V-126 currently extends between the intersection of the Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053° and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297° radials (BEARZ fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092° and Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016° radials (ILTON fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-133: V-133 extends between the intersection of the Charlotte, NC, VOR/DME 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, VOR/DME 197° radials (LINCO fix) and the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC; and between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Red Lake, ON, Canada, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME and Mansfield, OH, VORTAC; and between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada remain unchanged.

    V-170: V-170 extends between the Devils Lake, ND, VOR/DME and Salem, MI, VORTAC; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Andrews, MD, VORTAC 060° and Baltimore, MD, VORTAC 165° radials (POLLA fix); excluding the airspace within restricted area R-5802 when active. This rule removes the airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Bradford, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for restricted area R-5802 remain unchanged.

    V-176: V-176 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and the intersection of the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 294° and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 357° radials (HIMEZ fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. V-176 is removed in its entirety.

    V-188: V-188 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Groton, CT, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Tidioute, PA, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-210: V-210 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME; and between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and Yardley, PA, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Revloc, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-221: V-221 extends between the Bible Grove, IL, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016° and Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092° radials (ILTON fix) and the Erie, PA, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-232: V-232 extends between the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME and Colts Neck, NJ, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME and Keating, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-233: V-233 extends between the Spinner, IL, VORTAC and Pellston, MI, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and Mount Pleasant, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-297: V-297 extends between the Johnstown, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 305° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. V-297 is removed in its entirety.

    V-353: V-353 extends between the Jackson, MI, VOR/DME and Flint, MI, VORTAC. V-353 is removed in its entirety.

    V-383: V-383 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. V-383 is removed in its entirety.

    V-396: V-396 extends between the Windsor, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and Chardon, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-396 is removed in its entirety.

    V-406: V-406 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-406 is removed in its entirety.

    V-416: V-416 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the intersection of the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC 045° and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 123° radials (JAKEE fix). V-416 is removed in its entirety.

    V-418: V-418 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-418 is removed in its entirety.

    V-426: V-426 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-426 is removed in its entirety.

    V-435: V-435 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-435 is removed in its entirety.

    V-443: V-443 extends between the intersection of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME 099° and Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME 044° radials (WISKE fix) and the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-443 is removed in its entirety.

    V-450: V-450 extends between the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flint, MI, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-464: V-464 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-464 is removed in its entirety.

    V-467: V-467 extends between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. V-467 is removed in its entirety.

    V-486: V-486 extends between the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 316° and Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 260° radials (LEBRN fix) and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME. V-486 is removed in its entirety.

    V-493: V-493 extends between the Livingston, TN, VORTAC and Carleton, MI, VORTAC; and between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and Rhinelander, WI, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Carleton, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-522: V-522 extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC. V-522 is removed in its entirety.

    V-523: V-523 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC. V-523 is removed in its entirety.

    V-525: V-525 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-525 is removed in its entirety.

    V-542: V-542 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Lebanon, NH, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Tidioute, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

    V-584: V-584 extends between the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-584 is removed in its entirety.

    All radials in the route descriptions are stated in True degrees.

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 amending and removing multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

    Paragraph 6010(a). Domestic VOR Federal airways.

    V-2 [Amended]

    From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; Lone Rock, WI; Madison, WI; Badger, WI; Muskegon, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.

    V-5 [Amended]

    From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; Athens, GA; INT Athens 340° and Electric City, SC, 274° radials; INT Electric City 274° and Choo Choo, GA, 127° radials; Choo Choo; Bowling Green, KY; New Hope, KY; Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; to Appleton, OH.

    V-6 [Amended]

    From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 039° and Sacramento, CA, 212° radials; Sacramento; Squaw Valley, CA; Mustang, NV; Lovelock, NV; Battle Mountain, NV; INT Battle Mountain 062° and Wells, NV, 256° radials; Wells; 5 miles, 40 miles, 98 MSL, 85 MSL, Lucin, UT; 43 miles, 85 MSL, Ogden, UT; 11 miles, 50 miles, 105 MSL, Fort Bridger, WY; Rock Springs, WY; 20 miles, 39 miles 95 MSL, Cherokee, WY; 39 miles, 27 miles 95 MSL, Medicine Bow, WY; INT Medicine Bow 106° and Sidney, NE, 291° radials; Sidney; North Platte, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Davenport, IA; INT Davenport 087° and DuPage, IL, 255° radials; to DuPage. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to INT Gipper 092° and Litchfield, MI, 196° radials. From Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Allentown, PA; Solberg, NJ; INT Solberg 107° and Yardley, PA, 068° radials; INT Yardley 068° and La Guardia, NY, 213° radials; to La Guardia.

    V-8 [Amended]

    From INT Seal Beach, CA, 266° and Ventura, CA, 144° radials; Seal Beach; Paradise, CA; 35 miles, 7 miles wide (3 miles SE and 4 miles NW of centerline) Hector, CA; Goffs, CA; INT Goffs 033° and Morman Mesa, NV, 196° radials; Morman Mesa; Bryce Canyon, UT; Hanksville, UT; Grand Junction, CO; Rifle, CO; Kremmling, CO; Mile High, CO; Akron, CO; Hayes Center, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Moline, IL; Joliet, IL; Chicago Heights, IL; Goshen, IN; to Flag City, OH. From Briggs, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; Martinsburg, WV; to Washington, DC. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.

    V-10 [Amended]

    From Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; Garden City, KS; Dodge City, KS; Hutchinson, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063°and Napoleon, MO, 243° radials; Napoleon; Kirksville, MO; Burlington, IA; Bradford, IL; to INT Bradford 058° and Joliet, IL, 287° radials. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to Litchfield, MI. From Youngstown, OH; INT Youngstown 116° and Revloc, PA, 300° radials; Revloc; INT Revloc 107° and Lancaster, PA, 280° radials; to Lancaster.

    V-11 [Amended]

    From Brookley, AL; Greene County, MS; INT Greene County 315° and Magnolia, MS, 133° radials; Magnolia; Sidon, MS; Holly Springs, MS; Dyersburg, TN; Cunningham, KY; Pocket City, IN; Brickyard, IN; Marion, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 038° and Waterville, OH, 273° radials.

    V-14 [Amended]

    From Chisum, NM; Lubbock, TX; Childress, TX; Hobart, OK; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 052° and Tulsa, OK, 246° radials; Tulsa; Neosho, MO; Springfield, MO; Vichy, MO; INT Vichy 067° and St. Louis, MO, 225° radials; St. Louis; Vandalia, IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; to Flag City, OH. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; Georgetown, NY; INT Georgetown 093° and Albany, NY, 270° radials; Albany; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; Gardner; to Norwich, CT.

    V-26 [Amended]

    From Blue Mesa, CO; Montrose, CO; 13 miles, 112 MSL, 131 MSL; Grand Junction, CO; Meeker, CO; Cherokee, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; 14 miles 12 AGL, 37 miles 75 MSL, 84 miles 90 MSL, 17 miles 12 AGL; Rapid City, SD; Philip, SD; Pierre, SD; Huron, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; Farmington, MN; Eau Claire, WI; Waussau, WI; Green Bay, WI; INT Green Bay 116° and White Cloud, MI, 302° radials; White Cloud; to Lansing, MI.

    V-30 [Amended]

    From Badger, WI; INT Badger 102° and Pullman, MI, 303° radials; Pullman; to Litchfield, MI. From Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; East Texas, PA; INT East Texas 095° and Solberg, NJ, 264° radials; to Solberg.

    V-38 [Amended]

    From Moline, IL; INT Moline 082° and Peotone, IL, 281° radials; Peotone; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 091° and Rosewood, OH, 334° radials. From Appleton, OH; Zanesville, OH; Parkersburg, WV; Elkins, WV; Gordonsville, VA; Richmond, VA; Harcum, VA; to Cape Charles, VA.

    V-40 [Removed] V-43 [Amended]

    From Youngstown, OH; to Erie, PA.

    V-45 [Amended]

    From New Bern, NC; Kinston, NC; Raleigh-Durham, NC; INT Raleigh-Durham 275° and Greensboro, NC, 105° radials; Greensboro; INT Greensboro 334° and Pulaski, VA, 147° radials; Pulaski; Bluefield, WV; Charleston, WV; Henderson, WV; to Appleton, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Alpena, MI; to Sault Ste Marie, MI.

    V-47 [Amended]

    From Pine Bluff, AR; Gilmore, AR; Dyersburg, TN; Cunningham, KY; to Pocket City, IN. From Cincinnati, KY; Rosewood, OH; to Flag City, OH.

    V-59 [Amended]

    From Pulaski, VA; Beckley, WV; Parkersburg, WV; to Newcomerstown, OH.

    V-75 [Amended]

    From Morgantown, WV; Bellaire, OH; to Briggs, OH.

    V-84 [Amended]

    From Northbrook, IL; Pullman, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; INT Geneseo 091° and Syracuse, NY, 240° radials; to Syracuse.

    V-92 [Amended]

    From Chicago Heights, IL; to Goshen, IN. From Newcomerstown, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; INT Grantsville 124° and Armel, VA, 292° radials; to Armel.

    V-96 [Amended]

    From Brickyard, IN; Kokomo, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 071° and Flag City, OH, 289° radials.

    V-98 [Removed] V-103 [Amended]

    From Chesterfield, SC; Greensboro, NC; Roanoke, VA; Elkins, WV; Clarksburg, WV; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 327° and Akron, OH, 181° radials; to Akron.

    V-116 [Amended]

    From Erie, PA; Bradford, PA; Stonyfork, PA; INT Stonyfork 098° and Wilkes-Barre, PA, 310° radials; Wilkes-Barre; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; to Sparta.

    V-126 [Amended]

    From INT Peotone, IL, 053° and Knox, IN, 297° radials; INT Knox 297° and Goshen, IN, 270° radials; Goshen; to INT Goshen 092° and Fort Wayne, IN, 016° radials. From Erie, PA; Bradford, PA; to Stonyfork, PA.

    V-133 [Amended]

    From INT Charlotte, NC, 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, 197° radials; Barretts Mountain; Charleston, WV; to Zanesville, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Traverse City, MI; Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; Houghton, MI; Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace within Canada is excluded.

    V-170 [Amended]

    From Devils Lake, ND; INT Devils Lake 187° and Jamestown, ND, 337° radials; Jamestown; Aberdeen, SD; Sioux Falls, SD; Worthington, MN; Fairmont, MN; Rochester, MN; Nodine, MN; Dells, WI; INT Dells 097° and Badger, WI, 304° radials; Badger; INT Badger 121° and Pullman, MI, 282° radials; Pullman; to Salem, MI. From Bradford, PA; Slate Run, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Ravine, PA; INT Ravine 125° and Modena, PA, 318° radials; Modena; Dupont, DE; INT Dupont 223° and Andrews, MD, 060° radials; to INT Andrews 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials. The airspace within R-5802 is excluded when active.

    V-176 [Removed] V-188 [Amended]

    From Tidioute, PA; Slate Run, PA; Williamsport, PA; Wilkes-Barre, PA; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; Sparta; INT Sparta 082° and Carmel, NY, 243° radials; Carmel; INT Carmel 078° and Groton, CT, 276° radials; to Groton.

    V-210 [Amended]

    From Los Angeles, CA; INT Los Angeles 083° and Pomona, CA, 240° radials; Pomona; INT Daggett, CA, 229° and Hector, CA, 263° radials; Hector; Goffs, CA; 13 miles, 23 miles 71 MSL, 85 MSL, Peach Springs, AZ; Grand Canyon, AZ; Tuba City, AZ; 10 miles 90 MSL, 91 miles 105 MSL, Rattlesnake, NM; Alamosa, CO; INT Alamosa 074° and Lamar, CO, 250° radials; 40 miles, 51 miles, 65 MSL, Lamar; 13 miles, 79 miles, 55 MSL, Liberal, KS; INT Liberal 137° and Will Rogers, OK, 284° radials; Will Rogers; INT Will Rogers 113° and Okmulgee, OK, 238° radials; to Okmulgee. From Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; to Rosewood, OH. From Revloc, PA; INT Revloc 096° and Harrisburg, PA, 285° radials; Harrisburg; Lancaster, PA; INT Lancaster 095° and Yardley, PA, 255° radials; to Yardley.

    V-221 [Amended]

    From Bible Grove, IL; Hoosier, IN; Shelbyville, IN; Muncie, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 016° and Goshen, IN, 092° radials.

    V-232 [Amended]

    From Keating, PA; Milton, PA; INT Milton 099° and Solberg, NJ, 299° radials; Solberg; INT Solberg 137° and Colts Neck, NJ, 263° radials; to Colts Neck.

    V-233 [Amended]

    From Spinner, IL; INT Spinner 061° and Roberts, IL, 233° radials; Roberts; Knox, IN; Goshen, IN; to Litchfield, MI. From Mount Pleasant, MI; INT Mount Pleasant 351° and Gaylord, MI, 207° radials; Gaylord; to Pellston, MI.

    V-297 [Removed] V-353 [Removed] V-383 [Removed] V-396 [Removed] V-406 [Removed] V-416 [Removed] V-418 [Removed] V-426 [Removed] V-435 [Removed] V-443 [Removed] V-450 [Amended]

    From Escanaba, MI; Menominee, MI; Green Bay, WI; Muskegon, MI; INT Muskegon 094° and Flint, MI, 280° radials; to Flint.

    V-464 [Removed] V-467 [Removed] V-486 [Removed] V-493 [Amended]

    From Livingston, TN; Lexington, KY; York, KY; INT York 030° and Appleton, OH, 183° radials; to Appleton. From Menominee, MI; to Rhinelander, WI.

    V-522 [Removed] V-523 [Removed] V-525 [Removed] V-542 [Amended]

    From Tidioute, PA; Bradford, PA; INT Bradford 078° and Elmira, NY, 252° radials; Elmira; Binghampton, NY; Rockdale, NY; Albany, NY; Cambridge, NY; INT Cambridge 063° and Lebanon, NH, 214° radials; to Lebanon.

    V-584 [Removed]
    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 2018. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06268 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. FAA-2004-17005; Amdt. No. 93-91A] RIN 2120-AI17 Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Currently, FAA regulations require all pilots operating aircraft to or from College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport to file instrument flight rules (IFR), DC Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), or DC Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) flight plans with the Washington Hub Flight Service Station (FSS). The FAA is transferring the responsibility for processing flight plans within the DC FRZ from the Washington Hub FSS to the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This document revises the regulations by updating the organization responsible for processing the flight plans and by updating the flight plans required for flight operations in the DC FRZ.

    DATES:

    Effective on March 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Rosenbloom, Airspace and Rules, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3783; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

    Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.

    This document revises § 93.343(a) of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by updating the organization responsible for processing IFR and FRZ flight plans from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports. This revision will not impose any additional restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore, any additional delay in revising the regulations would be contrary to the public interest because it would create confusion among pilots operating in the DC SFRA including the DC FRZ. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) public comment on this change prior to promulgation is unnecessary and contrary to public interest, and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.

    Background

    Currently, § 93.343(a) requires pilots to file IFR, DC FRZ, or DC SFRA flight plans with the Washington Hub FSS for each departure and arrival from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airports, whether or not the aircraft makes an immediate stop.

    An objective of the Administrator's Flight Service National Airspace System (NAS) Efficient Streamlined Services Initiative is to realign activities through more efficient delivery of services. As part of this initiative, the FAA is transferring the responsibility for processing IFR and DC FRZ flight plans within the Washington DC Flight Restricted Zone from the Washington Hub FSS to the Flight Data Unit (FDU) at Washington ARTCC. This transition will occur on March 29, 2018. As a result, the FAA is updating § 93.343(a) to reflect the change in responsibility.1

    1 The FAA notes that this change in responsibility will also generate a change in the dedicated phone number used for pilots to confirm their flight plan. Therefore, the FAA is also revising its Orders to update the phone number and organization responsible for filing IFR and DC FRZ flight plans.

    Also as a result of the transition, the FAA is removing from §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) the references to the DC SFRA flight plan. Both regulations govern flight operations within the DC FRZ, which require a DC FRZ flight plan. Because a single entity was responsible for processing both DC SFRA and DC FRZ flight plans, the FAA has effectively construed any request for a DC SFRA flight plan to/from a location within the DC FRZ as a DC FRZ flight plan. Once the responsibilities for processing DC SFRA and DC FRZ flight plans are divided between two entities, however, the FAA will no longer be able to re-characterize a DC SFRA flight plan as a DC FRZ flight plan. The FAA is, therefore, removing the references to the DC SFRA from §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) to make clear that a pilot must file either an IFR or DC FRZ flight plan when operating to or from the DC FRZ.

    Furthermore, the FAA notes that it has communicated with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) about a corresponding technical amendment that must be made to 49 CFR 1562.3(g)(1) to include the new organization responsible for processing IFR and DC FRZ flight plans.

    Technical Amendment

    In this technical amendment, the FAA is revising § 93.343(a)(2) and (3) by removing the references to the Washington Hub FSS. In their place, the FAA is inserting references to the Washington ARTCC, which is the new organization responsible for processing the flight plans. Furthermore, the FAA is revising §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) by removing the references to the DC SFRA flight plan.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES 1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.

    2. Amend § 93.341 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 93.341 Aircraft operations in the DC FRZ.

    (d) Before departing from an airport within the DC FRZ, or before entering the DC FRZ, all aircraft, except DOD, law enforcement, and lifeguard or air ambulance aircraft operating under an FAA/TSA airspace authorization must file and activate an IFR or a DC FRZ flight plan and transmit a discrete transponder code assigned by an Air Traffic Control facility. Aircraft must transmit the discrete transponder code at all times while in the DC FRZ or DC SFRA.

    3. Amend § 93.343 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 93.343 Requirements for aircraft operations to or from College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Before departing, the pilot files an IFR or DC FRZ flight plan with the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center for each departure and arrival from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports, whether or not the aircraft makes an intermediate stop;

    (3) When filing a flight plan with the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center, the pilot identifies himself or herself by providing the assigned pilot identification code. The Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center will accept the flight plan only after verifying the code; and

    Issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g) and 40103 in Washington, DC.

    Lirio Liu, Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06335 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31184; Amdt. No. 3791] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 29, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

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

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2018. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 26 April 2018 Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Z RWY 19, Amdt 3B Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-A Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, RNAV (RNP) RWY 1, Amdt 1B Effective 24 May 2018 Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, LOC RWY 15, Amdt 5 Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1 Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1 Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 33, Orig-A, CANCELED Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, UNALAKLEET ONE, Graphic DP Unalakleet, AK, Unalakleet, VOR-D, Amdt 6 Haleyville, AL, Posey Field, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4A, CANCELED Hamilton, AL, Marion County-Rankin Fite, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 5A, CANCELED Prattville, AL, Prattville—Grouby Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 Vernon, AL, Lamar County, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3, CANCELED Rogers, AR, Rogers Executive—Carter Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 San Diego/El Cajon, CA, Gillespie Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9L, Orig Meriden, CT, Meriden Markham Muni, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 5 Millen, GA, Millen, NDB RWY 17, Orig-B, CANCELED Gooding, ID, Gooding Muni, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-D Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-C Kendallville, IN, Kendallville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-B Kendallville, IN, Kendallville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1B Hugoton, KS, Hugoton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-A Hugoton, KS, Hugoton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-A Smith Center, KS, Smith Center Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 3 Flemingsburg, KY, Fleming-Mason, LOC RWY 25, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Houlton, ME, Houlton Intl, VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 11B, CANCELED Adrian, MI, Lenawee County, NDB RWY 5, Orig-A Adrian, MI, Lenawee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A Adrian, MI, Lenawee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A Ann Arbor, MI, Ann Arbor Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 9A Battle Creek, MI, W K Kellogg, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1 Caro, MI, Tuscola Area, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2 Caro, MI, Tuscola Area, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2 Caro, MI, Tuscola Area, VOR-A, Amdt 7 Davison, MI, Athelone Williams Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-A, CANCELED Davison, MI, Athelone Williams Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-A, CANCELED Davison, MI, Athelone Williams Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2, CANCELED Davison, MI, Athelone Williams Memorial, VOR RWY 8, Orig-D, CANCELED Detroit/Grosse Ile, MI, Grosse Ile Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5A Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Gladwin, MI, Gladwin Zettel Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-B Hillsdale, MI, Hillsdale Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1 Hillsdale, MI, Hillsdale Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 8A, CANCELED Howell, MI, Livingston County Spencer J. Hardy, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A Lambertville, MI, Toledo Suburban, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Lambertville, MI, Toledo Suburban, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 7A, CANCELED Monroe, MI, Custer, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-A Monroe, MI, Custer, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-A Monroe, MI, Custer, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A Monroe, MI, Custer, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 2, CANCELED Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/Twin Valley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5R, Amdt 29 Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23L, Amdt 9 Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5R, Amdt 3 Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23L, Amdt 2 Toms River, NJ, Ocean County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1 Toms River, NJ, Ocean County, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 5 Gallup, NM, Gallup Muni, LOC RWY 6, Amdt 3C Gallup, NM, Gallup Muni, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 8A New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, COPTER RNAV (GPS) 027, Orig-C New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 2B Akron, OH, Akron-Canton Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 38A Ashland, OH, Ashland County, VOR-A, Amdt 9D Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 7A Ashtabula, OH, Northeast Ohio Rgnl, VOR-A, Orig-A Bowling Green, OH, Wood County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-D Bowling Green, OH, Wood County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-C Bowling Green, OH, Wood County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-C Bowling Green, OH, Wood County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C Bucyrus, OH, Port Bucyrus-Crawford County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A Bucyrus, OH, Port Bucyrus-Crawford County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-B Bucyrus, OH, Port Bucyrus-Crawford County, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 5A Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 16A Cleveland, OH, Cuyahoga County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Defiance, OH, Defiance Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1 Findlay, OH, Findlay, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-B Findlay, OH, Findlay, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A Findlay, OH, Findlay, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1A Findlay, OH, Findlay, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1B Fostoria, OH, Fostoria Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B Fostoria, OH, Fostoria Metropolitan, VOR-A, Amdt 4B Fremont, OH, Fremont, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-B Fremont, OH, Fremont, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 6A, CANCELED Fremont, OH, Sandusky County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1A Fremont, OH, Sandusky County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1A Galion, OH, Galion Muni, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 13B Kenton, OH, Hardin County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A Kenton, OH, Hardin County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A Lorain/Elyria, OH, Lorain County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-B Lorain/Elyria, OH, Lorain County Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Mansfield, OH, Mansfield Lahm Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 17A Mansfield, OH, Mansfield Lahm Rgnl, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 16A Mansfield, OH, Mansfield Lahm Rgnl, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 7B Medina, OH, Medina Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-C Ottawa, OH, Putnam County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A Ottawa, OH, Putnam County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A Ottawa, OH, Putnam County, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 2B Salem, OH, Salem Airpark Inc, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Wauseon, OH, Fulton County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-B Willard, OH, Willard, VOR-A, Orig-B Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nation Muni, NDB RWY 10, Amdt 10A Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nation Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-A Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nation Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-B Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nation Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-B Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nation Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nation Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A Zanesville, OH, Zanesville Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 1A Holdenville, OK, Holdenville Muni, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 4A, CANCELED Erie, PA, Erie Intl/Tom Ridge Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 18A Erie, PA, Erie Intl/Tom Ridge Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1B Mount Pocono, PA, Pocono Mountains Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 3C Mount Pocono, PA, Pocono Mountains Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2D Perkasie, PA, Pennridge, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-C Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27R, ILS RWY 27R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 27R (SA CAT II), Amdt 10H Pittsburgh, PA, Pittsburgh Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28C, Amdt 4C Winnsboro, SC, Fairfield County, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 5, CANCELED Amarillo, TX, Rick Husband Amarillo Intl, VOR/DME-A, Orig, CANCELED Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 3 Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Renton, WA, Renton Muni, NDB RWY 16, Amdt 8, CANCELED Moundsville, WV, Marshall County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-C Philippi, WV, Philippi/Barbour County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-A

    Rescinded: On February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8334), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31179, Amdt No. 3787, to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.37. The following entry for Buckland, AK, effective March 29, 2018, is hereby rescinded in its entirety:

    Buckland, AK, Buckland, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
    [FR Doc. 2018-06008 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31185; Amdt. No. 3792] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 29, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    For Examination

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

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

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

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

    Availability

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    The Rule

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

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

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

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

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 9, 2018. John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]

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

    * * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 26-Apr-18 WA Seattle Seattle-Tacoma Intl 7/2572 3/1/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, Amdt 1E 26-Apr-18 OR Roseburg Roseburg Rgnl 7/4908 2/20/18 VOR-A, Amdt 6 26-Apr-18 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 7/5971 3/1/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, Amdt 27A 26-Apr-18 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 7/5981 3/1/18 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24L, Amdt 5 26-Apr-18 MN Alexandria Chandler Field 7/9368 3/1/18 VOR RWY 22, Amdt 15 26-Apr-18 MN Alexandria Chandler Field 8/0189 3/1/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22 , Orig 26-Apr-18 MS Batesville Panola County 8/0713 2/20/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1 26-Apr-18 IL Peoria General Downing—Peoria Intl 8/1895 3/1/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 6F 26-Apr-18 CO Fort Collins/Loveland Northern Colorado Rgnl 8/2900 3/1/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 26-Apr-18 TX Crosbyton Crosbyton Muni 8/3493 3/1/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 26-Apr-18 MI Lapeer Dupont-Lapeer 8/3495 3/1/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 26-Apr-18 TN Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport Tri-Cities 8/3742 2/20/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1C 26-Apr-18 OH Wooster Wayne County 8/3745 3/1/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 26-Apr-18 KS Eureka Lt William M Milliken 8/3753 3/1/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 26-Apr-18 MA New Bedford New Bedford Rgnl 8/3764 2/20/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-B 26-Apr-18 ND Oakes Oakes Muni 8/3892 3/1/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 26-Apr-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 8/4030 2/20/18 ILS X OR LOC X RWY 16R, Orig-A 26-Apr-18 NV Reno Reno/Tahoe Intl 8/4031 2/20/18 ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 16R, Orig-A 26-Apr-18 MA Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard 8/5969 3/1/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 3A 26-Apr-18 WA Pasco Tri-Cities 8/5970 3/1/18 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 21R, Amdt 13
    [FR Doc. 2018-06009 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 10 [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1097] Good Guidance Practices; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending its good guidance practices regulation to inform the public on how to electronically submit a draft of a proposed guidance to the Agency. This technical amendment is nonsubstantive.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan Velez, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9301.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is amending 21 CFR 10.115(f)(3), good guidance regulations, by adding language on how the public can electronically submit drafts of proposed guidance documents to participate in the development and issuance of guidance documents. The amendment provides an option for submitting the draft of a proposed guidance to the Agency electronically through https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

    Publication of this document constitutes final action on the change under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). This technical amendment is nonsubstantive. FDA therefore, for good cause, has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Further, this rule places no burden on affected parties for which such parties would need a reasonable time to prepare for the effective date of the rule. Accordingly, FDA, for good cause, has determined this technical amendment to be exempt under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and that the rule can become effective upon publication.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 10

    Administrative practice and procedure, News media.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 10 is amended as follows:

    PART 10—ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-558, 701-706; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461; 21 U.S.C. 141-149, 321-397, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264.

    2. In § 10.115, add two sentences to the end of paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
    § 10.115 Good guidance practices.

    (f) * * *

    (3) * * * If you wish to submit the draft of a proposed guidance document electronically, submit it through https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. It is only necessary to submit one copy.

    Dated: March 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06252 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8523] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer
  • available in SFHAs
  • Region VII Iowa: Corwith, City of, Hancock County 190407 October 11, 1989, Emerg; July 1, 1991, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp April 4, 2018 April 4, 2018. Forest City, City of, Hancock and Winnebago Counties 190283 June 18, 1975, Emerg; January 2, 1981, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Garner, City of, Hancock County 190581 N/A, Emerg; March 24, 2015, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Hancock County, Unincorporated Areas 190873 June 16, 1995, Emerg; December 2, 2003, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Woden, City of, Hancock County 190410 July 19, 2012, Emerg; N/A, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Region VIII Colorado: Brush, City of, Morgan County 080130 June 18, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1977, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Fort Morgan, City of, Morgan County 080131 February 4, 1982, Emerg; February 5, 1986, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Morgan County, Unincorporated Areas 080129 April 22, 1980, Emerg; September 29, 1989, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Region IX California: Thousand Oaks, City of, Ventura County 060422 November 13, 1970, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Ventura County, Unincorporated Areas 060413 September 18, 1970, Emerg; October 31, 1985, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Westlake Village, City of, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties 060744 N/A, Emerg; October 1, 1992, Reg; April 4, 2018, Susp April 4, 2018 April 4, 2018. * do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: March 14, 2018. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06279 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208; DA 18-186] Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final action; requirements and procedures.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force, with the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, adopt specific parameters and procedures to implement the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process. This document describes the steps the Federal Communications Commission will use to establish a map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support from the newly collected, standardized 4G Long Term Evolution coverage data and proposes specific parameters for the data that challengers and respondents will submit as part of the challenge process, as well as a process for validating challenges.

    DATES:

    The challenge window will open March 29, 2018, and will remain open until August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit waivers by email to [email protected] or by hard copy to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, 445 12th Street SW, Room 6-C217, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions about the challenge process and the USAC portal, email [email protected] or contact Jonathan McCormack, [email protected], (202) 418-0660. For questions about the one-time, 4G LTE data collection, contact Ken Lynch, [email protected], (202) 418-7356, or Ben Freeman, [email protected], (202) 418-0628. Additional challenge process information is available at the Mobility Fund Phase II website (https://www.fcc.gov/mobility-fund-phase-2).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Public Notice (MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice), WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208, DA 18-186, adopted on February 27, 2018, and released on February 27, 2018. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice includes as attachments the following appendices: Appendix A, Generating Initial Eligible Areas Map; Appendix B, Validating Challenge Evidence; Appendix C, Applying Subsidy Data; Appendix D, File Specifications and File Formats; Appendix E, Relational Mapping of Form 477 Filers to Providers; and Appendix F, Challenge Data Certification Form. The complete text of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including all attachments, is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the Commission's website at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-18-186A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    I. Introduction

    1. In the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force (Task Force), with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureaus), establishes the parameters and procedures to implement the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) challenge process.

    2. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) directed the Bureaus to provide more details regarding the procedures for generating the initial map of presumptively eligible areas and the procedures for the challenge process. In the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, 82 FR 51180, November 3, 2017, the Task Force and Bureaus proposed and sought comment on the procedures for processing the coverage and subsidy data and creating the initial eligible areas map, the specific parameters for the data that challengers and respondents will submit as part of the challenge process, and a process for validating challenges. The Bureaus now resolve these issues and describe the filing requirements and procedures related to the challenge process.

    II. Procedures for Generating the Initial Eligible Areas Map

    3. The Bureaus adopt the proposed methodology for generating the initial map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support, i.e., those areas lacking unsubsidized qualifying coverage by any provider. In this multi-step approach, Commission staff first determines the unsubsidized coverage for each provider based on its submitted standardized coverage data of qualified 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE), and then aggregates these data across all providers; this aggregate area of unsubsidized coverage is then removed from the rest of the land area within each state to determine the presumptively eligible areas. This approach is consistent with the Commission's decision that areas lacking unsubsidized, qualifying 4G LTE service will be eligible for the auction, as well as its decision to create the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support using a combination of the new 4G LTE coverage data and subsidy data from USAC. Specifically, the methodology the Bureaus adopt produces a map of unsubsidized qualified 4G LTE coverage for each provider by removing from that provider's submitted coverage any areas that the USAC subsidy data show are subsidized. The resulting maps of unsubsidized coverage are then merged across all providers to determine the areas ineligible for MF-II support. The initial eligible areas map shows all areas that are not ineligible for MF-II support.

    4. To generate a map of unsubsidized qualified 4G LTE coverage for each provider, Commission staff: (1) Removes any subsidized areas from the provider's coverage map; (2) removes any water-only areas; (3) overlays a uniform grid with cells of one square kilometer (1 km by 1 km) on the provider's coverage map; and (4) removes grid cells with coverage of less than the minimum area that could be covered by a single speed test measurement when buffered. The term “water-only area” is defined as a water-only census block (that is, a census block for which the entire area is categorized by the U.S. Census Bureau as water).

    5. Using the maps that result from steps 1-4 of this process, staff then generates the map of presumptively eligible areas for each state (or state equivalent) by: (5) Merging the maps of unsubsidized coverage for all providers; (6) removing the merged unsubsidized coverage generated in step 5 (the ineligible areas) from the state's boundary to produce the eligible areas; and (7) removing any water-only areas from the eligible areas. Since the Bureaus waived the deadline for mobile wireless providers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to submit information regarding 4G LTE coverage, the map of presumptively eligible areas does not include Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    6. The Bureaus define a uniform grid with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) across the continental United States, and separate uniform grids with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) for overseas territories and Hawaii. These grids are defined using an “equal area” map projection so that the same number of speed tests will be required to challenge the cell regardless of the location of the grid cell. The USAC portal system will use the uniform grid system to validate and process data submitted during the challenge process.

    7. Commission staff is making available to the public the resulting map of presumptively eligible areas (overlaid with the uniform grid) for each state or state equivalent. The maps of unsubsidized coverage for specific providers will only be made available to a challenger through USAC's online challenge portal (the USAC portal) after the challenger agrees to keep such maps confidential.

    III. Procedures for MF-II Challenges A. Procedures for Challengers: Filing a Challenge 1. Timing for Availability of Initial Coverage Data and Challenge Window

    8. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make public the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support no earlier than four weeks after the deadline for submission of the new, one-time 4G LTE provider coverage data. The challenge process window will open no sooner than 30 days after the release of the map. Contemporaneously with the release of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus released the MF-II Challenge Process Initial Eligible Areas Map Public Notice, DA 18-187, on February 27, 2018, announcing the publication of the initial eligible areas map and that the challenge window will open 30 days later, on March 29, 2018. Once the challenge window opens, an eligible party will be able to access the USAC portal and download the provider-specific confidential data necessary to begin conducting speed tests. If a consumer, organization, or business believes that its interests cannot be met through its state, local, or Tribal government entity and wishes to participate in the process as a challenger, the individual or entity may file a petition with the Commission requesting a waiver for good cause shown. The challenge window will close 150 days later, consistent with the procedures adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. Although challengers will be able to submit speed test data until the close of the challenge window, the Commission determined that only those challenges to areas that are certified by a challenger at the close of the window will proceed. Since a challenger will not be able to certify a challenge until the submitted speed test data has been validated, the Bureaus strongly encourage challengers to submit data in advance of the closing date to allow ample time for validation processing. Each challenger is responsible for ensuring timely certification of its challenges.

    9. The Bureaus are providing 30 days' notice of the opening of the USAC portal and commencement of the challenge window.

    2. Using the USAC Challenge Process Portal a. Accessing the Portal

    10. Under the challenge process framework adopted by the Commission, a challenger must use the USAC portal to access the confidential provider-specific information that is pertinent to a challenge, as well as to submit its challenge, including all supporting evidence and required certifications. A challenger must log into the USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the procedures in the MF-II Handset and USAC Portal Access Public Notice, 83 FR 254, January 3, 2018, and the MF-II Challenge Process Portal Access Request Form is Available Public Notice, DA 18-142, February 14, 2018.

    11. The Bureaus remind parties participating in the challenge process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or attributable to a challenge process participant—including, but not limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access problem—and which prevents the participant from accessing provider-specific data or submitting a challenge prior to the close of the challenge window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.

    b. Access to Provider-Specific Data

    12. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available in a downloadable format through the USAC portal the provider-specific data underlying the map of presumptively eligible areas. Among other geographic data, a challenger will be able to access the following data in shapefile format on a state-by-state basis: (a) The boundaries of the state (or state equivalent) overlaid with the uniform grid; (b) the confidential coverage maps submitted by providers for the one-time 4G LTE data collection; and (c) the map of initial eligible areas. In addition, as proposed, challengers will be able to access, for each state, the confidential provider-specific data on the list of pre-approved handsets and the clutter information submitted for the one-time 4G LTE data collection. These data will be available for download in a tabular comma-separated value (CSV) format. A challenger will not have access to confidential provider-specific information unless and until it agrees to treat the data as confidential. Specifically, a challenger must agree to only use confidential provider-specific information for the purpose of submitting an MF-II challenge in the USAC portal before a challenger may download these data.

    3. Evidentiary Requirements for Challenge Data a. General Requirements Adopted by the Commission for Speed Test Measurements

    13. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Commission decided that a challenger must submit detailed proof of lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE coverage in support of its challenge in the form of actual outdoor speed test data showing measured download throughput. A challenger must submit speed data from hardware- or software-based drive tests or application-based tests that overlap the challenged area. Each speed test must be conducted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time, and the date of the test must be after the publication of the initial eligibility map but not more than six months before the scheduled close of the challenge window. Speed test data must be certified under penalty of perjury by a qualified engineer or government official.

    14. When collecting speed data, a challenger must use at least one of the three handsets identified by each provider whose coverage is the subject of the specific challenge. A challenger must purchase an appropriate service plan from each unsubsidized service provider in the challenged area. The Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that “[a]n appropriate service plan would allow for speed tests of full network performance, e.g., an unlimited high-speed data plan.” A challenger should be cognizant of the limitations under the service plan(s) it purchases and that respondents have the ability to respond to challenger speed tests with evidence of speed reductions. Depending on the size of the area being challenged and the terms of the plans offered by a challenged provider, a challenger may determine that it should purchase more than one service plan for the handset(s) it uses to test a provider's coverage in the challenged area. The Bureaus are not requiring a challenger to purchase multiple service plans from a challenged carrier; it is a challenger's decision what type of service plan and how many plans to purchase in order to collect speed test data that support a challenge.

    b. Substantial Coverage of the Challenged Area

    15. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that a challenger must submit actual outdoor speed test measurements with sufficient density to reflect actual consumer experience throughout the entire challenged area. Specifically, the Commission adopted a requirement that a challenger must take measurements that: (1) Are no more than a fixed distance apart from one another in each challenged area; and (2) substantially cover the entire area.

    16. The density of submitted speed points will be validated as part of a multi-step geospatial-data-processing approach. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus will determine whether a challenger's speed test points substantially cover a challenged area (i.e., cover at least 75 percent of the challenged area) by buffering each speed test point that reports a downstream speed less than 5 Mbps, calculating the buffered area, and then comparing the area of the buffered points to the challengeable area within a 1 km by 1 km grid cell. The Commission determined in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that the radius of the buffer will equal “half of the maximum distance parameter.” Under this validation process, if a challenger submits speed test measurements that are further apart than the maximum distance parameter in a challenged area, its evidence may be insufficient to cover at least 75 percent of the challengeable area within a cell, and its challenge would presumptively fail.

    17. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to use kilometers instead of miles to be consistent with the de minimis challenge size adopted by the Commission, as well as to be consistent with the units used for the “equal area” map projection that we will use when processing geospatial data. Consistent with the Commission's direction to adopt a maximum distance value, the Bureaus adopt the proposal that speed test measurements must be no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from one another. As a result, the buffer radius will equal one-quarter of one kilometer. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit data for at least one speed test within the challengeable area of a grid cell in order to challenge an area within the grid cell. The requirement that measurements be taken no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from one another serves as an upper bound (i.e., maximum distance apart), and a challenger will be free to and, in some circumstances, may be required to submit measurements taken more densely in order to sufficiently prove its challenge.

    18. Under the challenge process framework that the Commission adopted, all ineligible areas may be challenged and challengers have the option to conduct speed tests that cover the areas they wish to challenge. Similarly, responding providers have the option to submit speed tests that demonstrate their coverage. These options will not be diminished or otherwise modified by the relative accessibility of an area.

    c. Additional Parameters and Specifications for Speed Test Measurements

    19. In addition to the general requirements for speed tests, the Commission directed the Bureaus to implement any additional parameters to ensure that speed tests accurately reflect the consumer experience in the challenged area. Consistent with this direction, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. While a challenger is able to delete speed tests from the USAC portal, this function should only be used to correct errors in submissions or add information to previous submissions. The Commission will have the ability to review all submitted data, including deleted submissions and speed test data points that show speeds equal to or greater than 5 Mbps.

    20. In addition, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a challenger to provide data that is commonly collected by speed test software and speed test apps. Specifically, a challenger must provide: Signal strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make and model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware- or software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); and, if an app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the app. The Bureaus will not allow a challenger to submit speed test data of its own network.

    21. The Bureaus also adopt a requirement that a challenger report information about the server used for speed and latency testing. Specifically, a challenger is required to submit the identity and location of the server used for speed and latency testing.

    22. The complete list of data required for a challenge may be found in Appendix D.

    d. File Formats

    23. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that a challenger must submit speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. A challenger is required to submit a CSV file that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenger to provide evidence in support of its challenge. A challenger can create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal.

    24. The Bureaus require a challenger to report information about the server used for speed and latency testing. As a result, the Bureaus have modified the speed test data template proposed in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice to include the identity and location of the server used for testing.

    25. Additional details about the file formats required for challengers may be found in Appendix D.

    4. Validation of Challenges

    26. The Bureaus adopt and explain the detailed procedures for implementing system validation of evidence submitted by a challenger, as directed by the Commission in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. Consistent with the Bureaus' decision to use the uniform grid system to validate and process data submitted by a challenger, the USAC system will use a uniform grid of one square kilometer cells to perform geospatial analysis of a challenger's speed test data. The first step in the validation process requires the USAC system to determine whether a particular challenged area meets the de minimis threshold of one square kilometer. For each grid cell containing a speed test measurement submitted by a challenger, the challenged area will equal the challengeable portion of the grid cell (i.e., the ineligible area, or any area that is neither eligible nor water-only). The USAC system will superimpose each challenged area onto the initial eligibility map and remove any portions that overlap eligible areas. Since the USAC portal will use a uniform grid of one square kilometer cells to perform geospatial analysis, a challenge for a grid cell that is entirely challengeable will inherently meet the de minimis size threshold. In areas where the challengeable portion of the grid cell is less than this threshold, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to have the system validate that the sum of all areas challenged by a challenger in a state is greater than or equal to one square kilometer. If a challenge does not meet the de minimis area threshold, the challenge would fail step one of the validation process. If a challenge meets the de minimis area threshold, the USAC system will proceed to the second step of the validation process.

    27. In the second step of the system validation process, the USAC system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all standard parameters, other than the maximum distance and substantial coverage requirement. Consistent with the Bureau's proposal, a challenger must submit speed test data in a standard format on a state-by-state basis. If the challenge speed test data meet all standard parameters, the USAC system, as proposed, will determine the set of grid cells in which at least one counted speed test is contained (the challenged grid cells) and will proceed to the third step of the validation process.

    28. In step three, the USAC system creates a buffer (i.e., draws a circle of fixed size) around each counted speed test (i.e., each speed test point that passes steps one and two) using a radius of one quarter of one kilometer, which is equal to half of the maximum distance allowed between tests. For each challenged grid cell, the system will then determine how much of the total buffered area overlaps with the coverage map of the challenged provider for whose network the speed test measurement was recorded; this overlapping portion is the measured area. Since a challenger has the burden of showing insufficient coverage by each provider of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE service, the system will also determine the unmeasured area for each such provider, that is, the portion of each provider's coverage in the grid cell falling outside of the buffered area.

    29. In the last step of the validation process, the USAC system determines whether the buffered area of all counted speed tests covers at least 75 percent of the challengeable area in a grid cell. The system will merge the unmeasured area of all providers in a grid cell to determine the aggregated unmeasured area where the challenger has not submitted sufficient speed test evidence for every provider. If the calculated size of the aggregated unmeasured area in the grid cell is greater than 25 percent of the total challengeable area of the grid cell (i.e., the total area of the grid cell minus any water-only areas and any eligible areas), the challenge will be presumptively unsuccessful because it failed the requirement to include speed test measurements of sufficient density for all providers. The system will provide a warning to the challenger for any grid cells that fail this step. The system will consider all certified challenges in a particular grid cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window.

    5. Certifying a Challenge a. Qualified Engineer/Government Official Certification

    30. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that all submitted speed tests must be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or government official to be considered during the adjudication phase of the challenge process. The Bureaus clarify that a qualified engineer may be an employee of the challenger or a third-party vendor, so long as the individual: (1) Possesses a sufficient degree of technical knowledge and experience to validate the accuracy of submitted speed test data; and (2) has actual knowledge of the accuracy of the submitted data. For purposes of certification, a qualified engineer need not meet state professional licensing requirements, such as may be required for a licensed Professional Engineer, so long as the individual possesses the requisite technical knowledge, engineering training, and relevant experience to validate the accuracy of the submitted data. Using the Challenge Data Certification form in Attachment F, the qualified engineer or government official shall certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) He/she has examined the information prepared for submission; and (b) all data and statements contained therein were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief. The challenger must possess an executed Challenge Data Certification form in order to have all of the information it needs to certify a challenge. Persons making willful false statements in any part of a speed data submission may be subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment.

    b. Challenger Certification

    31. A challenger must certify its challenge(s) before the challenge window closes in order for the challenge to proceed. Through the USAC portal, a challenger will be able to electronically certify its counted speed test measurements on a grid cell by grid cell basis, since the system will consider each challenged grid cell as a separate challenge, or to certify some or all of its challenged grid cells on an aggregated basis. To certify a challenged grid cell, an authorized representative of the challenger must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer or government official who substantiated the speed test data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The qualified engineer or government official has examined the information submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer or government official has certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief. The Bureaus will not require a challenger to submit an executed Challenge Data Certification form when it certifies a challenge, though the Bureaus reserve the right to request a copy of the executed form. The Bureaus caution challengers that they will not be legally capable of making the required challenge certification in the USAC portal unless a qualified engineer or government official has substantiated the challenge speed test data by executing the Challenge Data Certification form.

    32. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenger to certify a presumptively unsuccessful challenge in a grid cell that fails validation solely because the challenger did not include speed test measurements of sufficient density for all providers. This will allow the system to consider all certified challenges in a particular grid cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window, even if the individual challenges would fail the density requirement on their own.

    33. During the challenge window, each challenger will be able to review its certified challenges on a grid cell by grid cell basis and may modify data submitted in support of a challenge after certifying (e.g., to correct or submit additional data). A challenger will be required to re-certify any challenges for which it submits additional or modified data; however, any new or modified data must also be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or government official. At the close of the challenge window, only those challenges that are certified will proceed to adjudication; however, all data entered into the USAC portal may be considered in determining the weight of the evidence.

    B. Procedures for Challenged Parties: Responding to a Challenge 1. Timing for Availability of Challenge Data and Response Window

    34. Following the close of the challenge window, the USAC portal system will process the data submitted by challengers. The type of processing that occurs after the challenge window closes is different from the automatic validation processing that takes place before the window closes. Specifically, once the challenge window closes, the system will aggregate all certified challenges and recalculate density for each challenged grid cell to determine whether the combined challenges cover at least 75 percent of the challenged area. Only those challenges that are certified at the close of the challenge window will undergo this post-window processing; any challenges that have not completed automatic validation processing and/or have not been certified by the close of the challenge window will not proceed. The Bureaus will provide challenged parties 30 days to review challenges and supporting data in the USAC portal prior to opening the response window. The response window will open no sooner than 30 days after the USAC system finishes processing the data submitted by challengers.

    35. Once opened, the response window will close 30 days later. Although a challenged party will have an opportunity to submit additional data via the USAC portal in response to a certified challenge for the entire duration of the response window, challenged parties are encouraged to file in advance of the deadline. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to submit additional data for the Commission's consideration after the response window closes.

    2. Using the USAC Challenge Process Portal a. Accessing the Portal

    36. A challenged provider must use the USAC portal if it chooses to: (1) access and review the data submitted by the challenger with respect to a challenge within the provider's service area; and/or (2) submit additional data/information to oppose the challenge (i.e., demonstrate that the challenger's speed test data are invalid or do not accurately reflect network performance). A challenged provider must log into the USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the procedures in the MF-II Handset and USAC Portal Public Notice.

    37. The Bureaus again remind parties participating in the challenge process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or attributable to a challenge process participant—including, but not limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access problem—and which prevents the participant from accessing challenge information or submitting response data prior to the close of the response window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.

    b. Challenge Information

    38. Each challenged provider will be able to access and download through the USAC portal all speed test data associated with certified challenges on that provider's network. Specifically, after the USAC system finishes processing challenger data, a challenged party will be able to view and download the counted speed test data associated with a certified challenge that disputes the challenged party's coverage, i.e., counted speed tests conducted by a challenger on the challenged party's network. In addition, each challenged provider will be able to view and download speed test measurements that failed validation solely because the measurement was greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. USAC will not make available to a challenged party any speed tests that receive error codes other than for being above the 5 Mbps download speed threshold (e.g., tests that failed because they were not conducted during the required time period). The Bureaus note that, since the USAC system will not fully process the failed speed test data, these data will only be available in a downloadable format. Also, the Bureaus remind parties that challenger speed test data for speed tests above 5 Mbps are not certified to, as they did not make it all the way through the challenger validation process.

    3. Evidentiary Requirements for Response Data a. General Requirements Adopted by the Commission

    39. A challenged party is not required to respond to a challenge within its service area. If a challenged provider chooses to respond to a challenge, the Commission will accept as response data certain technical information that is probative regarding the validity of a challenger's speed tests, including speed test data, information regarding speed reductions that affected specific challenger speed tests, and other device-specific data collected from transmitter monitoring software. If a challenged party submits its own speed test data, the data must conform to the same standards and requirements adopted for the challengers, except for the recency of the submitted data. Parties submitting technical data other than speed tests, including data from transmitter monitoring software, are required to include “geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements and other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site).” Only data collected after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the scheduled close of the response window will be accepted from challenged parties. Response data must be reliable and credible to be useful during the adjudication process. Any evidence submitted by a challenged party in response to a challenge must be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or official under penalty of perjury.

    b. Additional Requirements for Speed Test Measurements

    40. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, if a challenged party chooses to submit its own speed test data, the data must conform to the same additional parameters adopted for challengers, except for the requirement to identify the service provider. A challenged party may only provide speed tests of its own network in response to a challenge. In addition to the parameters adopted by the Commission in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, a challenged party's speed data must include: Signal strength and latency; the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the IMEI of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware or software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); if an app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the app; and the identity and location of the server used for testing. As with challenger data, a challenged party's speed test measurements may be no further than one-half kilometer apart from one another. While the system will not validate a challenged party's response data, response speed tests must record a download speed of at least 5 Mbps and meet all other standard parameters. A challenged party must submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds less than or equal to 5 Mbps. The complete file specification for respondent speed tests is detailed in Appendix D.

    41. While data submitted by a challenged party will not be subject to the identical system validation process used for challenger speed test data, the system will process any submitted speed data using a similar approach. The USAC system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all standard parameters and apply a buffer with a fixed radius to each counted speed measurement.

    c. Additional Requirements for Speed Reduction Data

    42. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenged party to submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in effect on the challenger's device (speed reduction data). As the Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus expect that speed test data will be particularly persuasive evidence to rebut a challenge. The Bureaus do not expect a challenged provider to submit challenger speed tests as part of its rebuttal because the challenged provider would need actual knowledge of the conditions under which the challenger speed tests were conducted to be able to certify to the accuracy of the challenger's speed tests.

    43. The Bureaus acknowledge that a provider may reduce data speed for various reasons, and expect that evidence of user-specific speed reductions will be more probative and given more weight during adjudication than evidence of common network practices affecting all subscribers independent of the service plan used. Speed reduction data will be most probative of the validity of challenger speed tests when those data show that specific test results were caused by the challenger's chosen rate plan or the challenger's data usage in the relevant billing period. While the Bureaus will not require a challenger and challenged party to coordinate before speed test data are recorded, interested parties will not be prohibited from coordinating with one another regarding speed tests if they choose to do so.

    d. Requirements for Data From Transmitter Monitoring Software

    44. Under the MF-II challenge process framework adopted by the Commission, a challenged party may submit device-specific data collected from transmitter monitoring software in responding to a challenge. As stated in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, these data “should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site) in order to help refute a challenge.” The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow challenged parties to submit transmitter monitoring software data that is substantially similar in form and content to speed test data in order to facilitate comparison of such data during the adjudication process. In particular, challenged parties wishing to submit such data must include: The latitude and longitude to at least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the measurement; and signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The Bureaus will not require challenged parties submitting data from transmitter monitoring software to provide the measured distance between the device and transmitter.

    45. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to require that measurements from submitted transmitter monitoring software data conform to the standard parameters and requirements adopted by the Commission for speed test data submitted by a challenged party. The Bureaus will require that such measurements reflect device usage between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and be collected after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the scheduled close of the response window. The Bureaus will not require challenged parties to submit all transmitter monitoring software data collected over the relevant time period due to the potential massive volume of data that could be collected over six months. The complete file specifications for respondent transmitter monitoring software data is detailed in Appendix D. The Bureaus caution that triangulated data with large inaccuracies may not be precise enough to constitute device-specific geolocated measurements because an engineer would not be able to certify to the accuracy of a particular speed test occurring at a particular location.

    e. File Formats

    46. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that challenged parties submit speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. Challenged parties are required to submit a CSV file that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenged party to provide evidence in support of its response. A challenged party can create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will also require that data from transmitter monitoring software be submitted using this same template. A challenged party may leave the device IMEI and device ID fields blank when submitting data from transmitter monitoring software.

    47. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require challenged parties that file speed reduction data to file the data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. This file can be created using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will permit challenged parties to leave the device download speed data field blank if that provider's plan does not reduce speeds to a fixed value. In order to be useful when evaluating challenges, the Bureaus conclude that the data captured in the speed reduction data template must reflect when a particular device was known to have actually experienced reduced speeds.

    48. The Bureaus expect that speed reduction data would need to show that a specific speed test result was affected by a speed reduction—not merely that the challenger was eligible for (i.e., potentially subject to) reduced speeds sometimes under the terms of its service plan (because of the amount of recent data usage or not). Accordingly, the Bureaus expect that, for speed data submitted by challengers that chose appropriate rate plans (those that allowed for testing of full network performance), a challenged party's data showing that a specific speed reduction occurred over a very limited time period, such as a few minutes, would be more probative of the validity of challenger speed tests taken during that time than data alleging that a speed reduction occurred over several hours or several days. If, however, the challenger chose an inappropriate rate plan or the challenger's data usage triggered a constant and extended speed reduction, for example by the challenger going over a high-speed data allotment in a billing period, the Bureaus expect that a challenged party's speed reduction data would be useful if it showed the entire period that challenger speed tests were taken under such conditions.

    49. The Bureaus' decision to require that response speed test data, transmitter monitoring software data, and speed reduction data be submitted in a certain format is consistent with the Commission's direction that the Bureaus implement “any additional requirements that may be necessary or appropriate for data submitted by a challenged party in response to a challenge.” To the extent response data requires further explanation that does not fit into the templates, a challenged party may additionally provide a descriptive narrative in a text box accessible via the USAC portal; however, speed test data, transmitter monitoring data, or speed reduction data submitted by challenged parties must otherwise conform to the required templates in order to be considered.

    50. Additional details about the attributes and the file formats that we will require for respondents may be found in Appendix D.

    4. Certifying a Response a. Qualified Engineer Certification

    51. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that all response evidence must be certified by a qualified engineer to be considered during the adjudication phase of the challenge process. The Bureaus again clarify that a qualified engineer may be an employee of the challenged party or a third-party vendor so long as the individual: (1) Possesses a sufficient degree of technical knowledge and experience to validate the accuracy of submitted data; and (2) has actual knowledge of the accuracy of the submitted data. For purposes of certification, a qualified engineer need not meet state professional licensing requirements, such as may be required for a licensed Professional Engineer, so long as the individual possesses the requisite technical knowledge, engineering training, and relevant experience to validate the accuracy of the submitted data. Using the Challenge Data Certification form in Attachment F, the qualified engineer shall certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) He/she has examined the information prepared for submission; and (b) all data and statements contained therein were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief. The Bureaus will not require a challenged party to submit an executed Challenge Data Certification form when it certifies a response, though the Bureaus reserve the right to request a copy of the form. The Bureaus caution challenged parties that they will not be legally capable of making the required response certification unless a qualified engineer has substantiated the response data by executing the Challenge Data Certification form. The challenged party must possess an executed Challenge Data Certification form in order to have all of the information it needs to certify a response. Persons making willful false statements in any part of a speed data submission may be subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment.

    b. Challenged Party Certification

    52. Only those responses that have been certified by the close of the response window will be considered during the adjudication phase. A challenged party will be able to electronically certify its submitted response data for each challenged grid cell via the USAC portal. To certify a response, an authorized representative of the challenged party must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer that substantiated the data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The qualified engineer has examined the information submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer has certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief.

    53. During the response window, a challenged party will also be able to review, modify, and delete any certified response data it no longer wishes to submit, and will be required to re-certify any responses for which it submits additional or modified data or deletes data; however, any new or modified data must also be certified by a qualified engineer. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to amend submitted data, submit additional data, or certify any response after the response window has closed.

    C. Adjudication of Challenges 1. Standard of Review

    54. As the Commission determined in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus will adjudicate the merits of certified challenges based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard of review, and the challenger will bear the burden of persuasion.

    2. Announcing Results

    55. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available to challengers and respondents data about their challenges and responses through the USAC portal after Commission staff have adjudicated all challenges and responses. In particular, the Bureaus will provide to each challenger or respondent for each of the grid cells associated with their certified challenges or certified responses, respectively: (a) The outcome of the adjudication; (b) the evidence submitted and certified by all challengers; and (c) the evidence submitted and certified by all respondents. Additionally, the Bureaus will make public on the Commission's website, concurrent with the publication of the final eligibility map, the outcome of the adjudication for each challenged cell and the non-confidential components of the data submitted by challengers and respondents.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Congressional Review Act

    56. The Commission will send a copy of this Public Notice to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    57. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice implements the information collection requirements adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017, and does not contain any additional information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission received PRA approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection requirements related to the challenge process, as adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. See 83 FR 6562 (Feb. 14, 2018). Because this Public Notice does not adopt any additional information collection requirements beyond those adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order and approved by OMB, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice does not implicate the procedural requirements of the PRA or the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.

    C. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM (76 FR 78383, December 16, 2011), the 2014 CAF FNPRM (80 FR 4445, January 27, 2015), and the MF-II FNPRM (82 FR 13413, March 13, 2017) (collectively, MF-II FNPRMs). A Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) was also filed in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the MF-II FNPRMs and in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, including comments on the IRFAs and Supplemental IRFA. The Commission received three comments in response to the MF-II FNPRM IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the other IRFAs or the Supplemental IRFA. The Commission included Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in connection with the 2014 CAF Order, the MF-II Order, and the MF-II Challenge Process Order (collectively, the MF-II Orders). This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) supplements the FRFAs in the MF-II Orders to reflect the actions taken in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice and conforms to the RFA.

    1. Need for, and Objectives of, This Public Notice

    59. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice establishes the parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II challenge process. Following the release of the MF-II Orders, the Commission released the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. The MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice proposed and sought comment on specific parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II challenge process.

    60. More specifically, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice establishes the technical procedures for generating the initial eligible areas map and processing challenges or responses submitted by challengers and challenged parties, respectively. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice also establishes additional requirements and parameters, including file formats and specifications, for data submitted during the challenge process.

    61. Finally, the challenge procedures established in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are designed to anticipate the challenges faced by small entities (e.g., governmental entities or small mobile service providers) in complying with the implementation of the Commission's rules and the Bureau's proposals. For example, the Commission will perform all geospatial data analysis on a uniform grid, which will remove the need for a challenger to submit a map of the area(s) it wishes to challenge on top of its evidence, reducing burdens on small entities. Additionally, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice adopts procedures to allow a challenged entity to submit evidence identifying devices that were subject to data speed regulations, alongside evidence from transmitter monitoring software and speed tests, which would allow for a small entity to more easily respond to a challenge. Challenged parties will also be given 30 days to review challenges and supporting data before the response window opens, further reducing the burden on small entities of responding to a challenge.

    2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    62. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed procedures and policies presented in the Supplemental IRFA.

    3. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

    63. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments.

    64. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed procedures in this proceeding.

    4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Business Entities to Which Procedures Will Apply

    65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

    66. FRFAs were incorporated into the MF-II Orders. In those analyses, the Commission described in detail the small entities that might be significantly affected. In the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus incorporate by reference the descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from the previous FRFAs in the MF-II Orders.

    5. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    67. The data, information, and document collection required by the MF-II Orders, as described in the previous FRFAs and the SIRFA in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice in this proceeding, are hereby incorporated by reference. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice describes certain additional parameters for the data submitted by challengers and challenged parties during the challenge process. Specifically, the Bureaus require a challenger to submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. Each submitted speed test measurement must include: Signal strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make and model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware- or software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); if an app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the app; and the identity and location of the server used for speed and latency testing.

    68. If a challenged party chooses to submit its own speed test data in response to a challenge, the data must conform to the additional parameters that are required for challengers, except for the requirement to identify the service provider. A challenged party may also submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in effect on the challenger's device. If a challenged party chooses to submit data collected from transmitter monitoring software, the data should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site). Measurements from submitted transmitter monitoring software data must conform to the standard parameters and requirements for speed test data submitted by a challenged party, and must include: The latitude and longitude to at least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the measurement; and signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The Bureaus also clarify that such geolocated data be accurate to within 7.8 meters of the actual device location 95 percent of the time.

    6. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    69. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”

    70. The challenge procedures established in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are intended to remove the need for a challenger to submit a map of the area(s) it wishes to challenge on top of its evidence by having the Commission perform all geospatial data analysis on a uniform grid, which will benefit small entities. The challenge procedures also allow a challenged entity to submit evidence identifying devices that were subject to data speed reductions, alongside evidence from transmitter monitoring software and speed tests, thereby minimizing the significant economic impact on small entities. Challenged parties will also be given 30 days to review challenges and supporting data before the response window opens. In addition, the Bureaus note that the challenge processes and procedures adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice will only apply to small entities who participate in the challenge process. The Bureaus also note that to the extent a challenged party is a small entity, since a challenged party is not required to respond to challenges within their service area(s) the processes and procedures associated with responding to challenges adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are only applicable should a small entity choose to submit responsive evidence.

    7. Report to Congress

    71. The Commission will send a copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06382 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 171017999-8262-01] RIN 0648-BH32 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed Season AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the recreational fishing year and modifies the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purposes of this final rule and the framework action are to constrain recreational harvest to assist in ending overfishing, and to rebuild the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf, while achieving optimum yield of the stock in the Gulf.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2017/GAJ_Fishing%20Year/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    On January 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (83 FR 3670). The proposed rule and the framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the framework action and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

    This final rule revises the recreational fishing year and the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf.

    Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year

    This final rule revises the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fishing year to be August 1 through July 31. The current Gulf recreational fishing year for greater amberjack is January 1 through December 31 and was established in the original FMP (49 FR 39548; October 9, 1984). The change implemented through this final rule allows for greater amberjack recreational harvest to occur later in the year and provides an opportunity to harvest greater amberjack when harvest of many other reef fish species is prohibited due to in-season closures as a result of harvest limits. By starting the fishing year in August, when fishing effort is less, NMFS and the Council expect enough recreational quota remaining to allow for harvest during May of the following calendar year.

    Consistent with the change in the fishing year, this final rule revises the years associated with the greater amberjack recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and quotas. Currently, the recreational ACLs and quotas are defined by the calendar year, which is also the fishing year. With the change to the recreational fishing year, the recreational ACLs and quotas apply across calendar years. Therefore, this final rule assigns the recently implemented 2018 ACL and quota to the remainder of the August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018, recreational fishing year. The 2019 recreational ACL and quota will correspond to the 2018-2019 recreational fishing year, and the recreational ACL and quota for 2020 and beyond will correspond to all subsequent fishing years.

    Greater Amberjack Recreational Fixed Closed Season

    NMFS recently published a final rule that changed the greater amberjack recreational closed season from June through July each year to January through June (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017) to allow the Council time to further modify the closed season to create two separate recreational fishing seasons.

    This final rule modifies the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack to be from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. This means that recreational harvest would be allowed in May and from August through October each calendar year unless an in-season closure is necessary to constrain harvest to the recreational quota. Because this final rule also changes the recreational fishing year, NMFS expects any in-season quota closure to occur later in the fall or during May of the following year. However, because NMFS expects the recreational fixed closed season to reduce recreational landings NMFS also expects this change to reduce the likelihood of an in-season closure and landings exceeding the recreational ACL. This final rule is also expected to protect greater amberjack during peak spawning months in the majority of the Gulf (March through April), thereby contributing to rebuilding the greater amberjack stock by the end of the designated time period in 2027.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a total of 46 comments on the proposed rule for the framework action from individual fishers and two for-hire fishing vessel associations. Several commenters supported the proposed measures for Gulf greater amberjack. Other comments stated that changes to fishing regulations cause confusion, and suggested a tag system to measure harvest of greater amberjack, but those assertions were outside the scope of the proposed rule and therefore are not addressed here.

    Specific comments related to the framework action and the proposed rule are grouped by topic and summarized below, followed by NMFS' respective responses.

    Comment 1: Greater amberjack is abundant in the Gulf which suggests the stock is healthy; therefore, the greater amberjack stock is not in need of rebuilding, and these additional management measures are not necessary.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the greater amberjack stock is not in need of rebuilding and that the management measures in this final rule are unnecessary. In 2016, a Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment for greater amberjack was completed (SEDAR 33) and indicated the Gulf greater amberjack stock remained overfished, was undergoing overfishing, and would not be rebuilt by 2019, as was previously estimated. Therefore, the Council established a new rebuilding time period that ends in 2027 and revised the ACLs and quotas. (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017). The management measures implemented through this final rule are expected to constrain harvest to the new catch levels and protect the stock during springtime spawning activity in March and April. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that these management measures will help meet rebuilding goals for this stock.

    Comment 2: The greater amberjack recreational fishing year should not be changed. Changing the fishing year to start on August 1 will cost money and take time to implement without providing any benefit. It will also shift effort in the eastern Gulf to the western Gulf, changing the dynamics of the fishery. This change will eliminate any recreational spring fishery for greater amberjack in the eastern Gulf because there will be enough of the recreational quota remaining after the fall season.

    Response: While NMFS agrees that the change in the fishing year may shift fishery dynamics, this change is expected to provide benefits by reducing the overall recreational harvest of greater amberjack, which will reduce the likelihood of an in-season closure, and allow for harvest in May as well as August through October. The first season is limited to 3 months (August, September, and October) and is during a time of historically low fishing effort. Analysis included in the framework action predicted that the new recreational quota should be sufficient to allow for harvest both in the fall and the spring.

    In addition, changing the fishing year to begin on August 1 provides access to greater amberjack later in the calendar year, which is a period when the harvest of other targeted species (e.g., red snapper) is typically unavailable in Federal waters. Opening recreational fishing for greater amberjack later in the calendar year is also expected to improve access to this species because weather tends to be more favorable.

    Comment 3: The recreational closed season for greater amberjack should not be changed.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the recreational closed season for greater amberjack should not be changed. The current recreational greater amberjack closed season of January 1 through June 30 was intended to be a temporary measure to allow the Council time to consider alternatives that would allow for harvest in both the spring and fall. If the current closed season were left in place, it would not allow for recreational harvest in the spring, which is a time when many recreational anglers have requested that recreational harvest of greater amberjack occur because this is a time when other targeted species, such as red snapper, are usually unavailable for harvest. The Council considered several options for modifying the closed season to allow harvest in the spring and chose May as the open month to avoid harvest during the peak spawning months of March and April.

    Comment 4: A 4-month recreational open season for greater amberjack is too short. Recreational harvest should be allowed year-round or at least also in June and July.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. Allowing recreational harvest of greater amberjack during June and July, historically the months of highest recreational fishing effort, or year-round, would likely result in an in-season quota closure, and would increase the likelihood of exceeding the recreational ACL. It would also be inconsistent with the Council's intent to have both fall and spring fishing seasons. Allowing for recreational harvest in May, August, September, and October is expected to increase the opportunity for recreational harvest while still protecting the stock as it rebuilds.

    Comment 5: Modifying the recreational bag limits, implementing seasonal split quotas, and modifying the commercial trip limits would be more effective in managing the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf than changing the fishing year and closed season.

    Response: The Council did not consider modifying recreational bag limits or establishing recreational seasonal quotas for greater amberjack in the Gulf in this framework action. However, in response to public comments at its October 2017 meeting, the Council began development of another framework action in which it will consider recreational bag limit options and split quotas as well as commercial vessel limits for greater amberjack. NMFS expects the Council to review a draft options paper for this framework in 2018.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments from the public or the SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy were received regarding the certification, and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its determination. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Greater amberjack, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.7, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 622.7 Fishing years.

    (h) Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack recreational sector—August 1 through July 31. (Note: The fishing year for the commercial sector for greater amberjack is January 1 through December 31).

    3. In § 622.34, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 622.34 Seasonal and area closures designed to protect Gulf reef fish.

    (c) Seasonal closure of the recreational sector for greater amberjack. The recreational sector for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.

    4. In § 622.39, revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 622.39 Quotas.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Recreational quota for greater amberjack. (A) For the 2017-2018 fishing year—716,173 lb (324,851 kg).

    (B) For the 2018-2019 fishing year—902,185 lb (409,224 kg).

    (C) For the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years—1,086,985 lb (493,048 kg).

    5. In § 622.41, revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) The applicable recreational ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 862,860 lb (391,387 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 1,309,620 lb (594,034 kg) for 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.

    [FR Doc. 2018-06317 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 161024999-8248-02] RIN 0648-BG40 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Authorization of an Oregon Recreational Fishery for Midwater Groundfish Species AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule authorizes the use of midwater long-leader gear for recreational fishing in waters seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 fathoms depth contour off the coast of Oregon. Both charter and private vessels are authorized to use midwater long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fathom seasonal depth closure, while being monitored with the existing Oregon Ocean Recreational Boat Sampling (ORBS) program. The use of midwater long-leader gear is intended to limit bycatch of overfished and rebuilding rockfish species, such as bottom-dwelling yelloweye rockfish, while still allowing for the catch of abundant midwater species such as yellowtail and widow rockfish. The season will occur between April and September, months currently subject to depth restrictions.

    DATES:

    Effective April 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Biegel, phone: 503-231-6291, fax: 503-872-2737, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    This final rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at http://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.

    Background

    Since 2004, NMFS has restricted Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries to shallow depths (<20-40 fm) during peak effort to reduce interactions with deeper water species, especially yelloweye rockfish. The recreational groundfish fisheries are an important part of the local economy and social fabric in Oregon's coastal communities. From 2011-2015, anglers fished an average of 84,000 recreational groundfish trips per year in the Federal waters off of the Oregon coast, representing about 44 percent of the total Oregon recreational fishery effort during this period. The implementation of deep-water rockfish closures in 2004 left several Oregon ports without any viable groundfish fishing opportunities.

    To increase recreational fishing opportunities in these ports and relieve pressure from nearshore reefs, NMFS issued exempted fishing permits (EFPs) to the Oregon Recreational Fishing Alliance and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) from 2009-2011 to test the viability of long-leader gear. The long-leader gear tested under this EFP test fishing program and authorized for use by this rule has one line with no more than three hooks, a sinker at the bottom, at least 30 feet (9.14 m) between the sinker and the lowest hook, and a non-compressible float above the hooks. This gear limits interaction with deeper water groundfish species that inhabit areas close to the seafloor by suspending the hooks well above the seafloor. In 2005, based in part on favorable EFP test fishing results using midwater long-leader gear on Oregon sport charter fishing vessels, the Council requested that NMFS implement regulations authorizing a midwater long-leader fishery in the Federal waters off the Oregon coast.

    This final rule authorizes midwater long-leader recreational groundfish fishing seaward of a line approximating the 40 fathom depth curve exclusively off the coast of Oregon (42°00′ North latitude [N lat.] to 46°18′ N lat.) from April 1 to September 30. NMFS expects this gear configuration will allow recreational anglers to target abundant and healthy midwater species while avoiding or minimizing interactions with overfished rockfish species. When deploying this gear, anglers are authorized to use artificial lures or flies less than or equal to 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length. However, anglers may not use natural bait, or lures or flies greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length, as was the case under the terms and conditions of the EFP. This final rule retains this prohibition on live bait, which was originally part of the EFP test fishing program to limit impacts to canary rockfish that were overfished at that time, because canary has only recently been declared rebuilt and it is prudent to take actions that are precautionary and limit initial impacts on newly rebuilt species. If desired, NMFS and the Council could work towards removing the prohibition in the future.

    Under the action, anglers are also prohibited from possessing lingcod. All other existing state and Federal groundfish regulations, such as bag limits and rockfish conservation areas, remain in effect. ODFW will monitor this fishery through its existing Ocean Recreational Boat Survey. The Council approved language in the definition of long-leader gear that included a prohibition on “large lures.” However, the Council did not define this term. After consultation with ODFW, this final rule defines “large lure” as over five inches in length. This definition is based on industry standard lure sizes commonly used in the recreational fishery.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS published a proposed rule for this action on December 12, 2017 (82 FR 60170). We received 67 comments on the proposed rule. We received public comments from 3 recreational fishing organizations, 2 boat owners, 6 charter operators, 1 tackle shop, 3 EFP participants, 32 recreational anglers, and 17 private citizens. These comments are discussed below.

    Comment 1: All responsive comments supported creation of the midwater long-leader recreational fishery.

    Response: NMFS agrees, and through this rule is promulgating regulations to allow recreational anglers to use midwater long-leader gear seaward of a line approximating the 40 fathom depth curve exclusively off the coast of Oregon (42°00′ N lat. to 46°18′ N lat.) from April 1 to September 30.

    Comment 2: NMFS received five comments on the proposed gear configuration. Two recreational fishermen and one EFP participant commented in support of the gear as proposed. One charter operator proposed changes that would make the gear less likely to tangle. One recreational angler asked that the regulations exempt small vessels such as kayaks from the long-leader gear requirements while participating in the fishery.

    Response: When the Council was developing this action, Council members discussed the need to develop regulations that reflect the same, or as similar as possible to, the gear configurations used in the EFP to test this fishery. The purpose of this was to ensure that impacts from this fishery would be similar to what occurred under the EFP. Because NMFS did not exempt small vessels, such as kayaks, from the EFP, or test the proposed changes suggested by the commentor in the EFP, it is difficult for NMFS to accurately predict the impacts associated with these suggestions. Therefore, NMFS will not remove or alter the required long-leader gear configuration, or allow exemptions for small vessels such as kayaks, without further Council discussion and consideration of these changes.

    Comment 3: NMFS received sixteen comments on the proposed prohibition on natural bait. One charter operator, two EFP participants, and one recreational angler commented in support of the bait prohibition, stating that bait was unnecessary to produce good catches. One boat owner, one recreational fishing organizations, one tackle shop, one charter operator, seven recreational anglers, and one private citizen commented in opposition to the natural bait prohibition. Of these, one charter operator and one recreational angler commented that natural bait was prohibited during the EFP test fishing to avoid bycatch of canary rockfish. Because the canary rockfish stock is rebuilt, and can now be retained, they commented that the bait prohibition is no longer necessary.

    Response: As noted above in the background section, NMFS will not remove the prohibition on the use of live bait for this fishery at this time. The prohibition on the use of live bait was included in the terms and conditions of the EFPs used to test this fishery as a means to protect the overfished canary rockfish by reducing interactions with the canary rockfish. Since then, canary rockfish has been declared rebuilt. However, NMFS is maintaining the prohibition because NMFS does not know the impacts to canary rockfish that could occur if this prohibition were removed. Those impacts were not tested or evaluated in the EFP test fishing and associated analysis. Additionally, because canary rockfish has only recently been rebuilt, NMFS believes it is important to take a precautionary approach in developing fisheries that could impact this newly rebuilt species. However, starting that discussion with the Council now would interfere with NMFS's goal to have this rule in place for the 2018 fishing season. April 1 is the start of the fishing season, ensuring that this rule is effective on April 1 will allow fishermen to access areas previously subject to depth restrictions for the entire season. If desired, NMFS and the Council could choose to work towards removing the prohibition in the future.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We adjusted the proposed rule's regulatory text defining lure size to make it clearer and to assist in enforcement. The text “not to exceed 5 inches in length” was changed to “less than or equal to 5 inches in length.”

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

    Because this rule relieves a restriction, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). This final rule allows recreational anglers to target groundfish using midwater long-leader gear, from April 1 to September 30, in waters seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 fathoms depth contour off the coast of Oregon. These months were previously subject to depth restrictions. Therefore, NMFS is setting the effective date for this rule as April 1, 2018, to match the start of the fishing season and allow recreational anglers the opportunity to use long-leader gear for the duration of the 2018 fishing season.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 604, requires federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for each final rule. A FRFA was prepared and incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and includes a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are included below. A statement of the need for, and the objectives of, this action is contained in the proposed rule and the preamble to this final rule, and is not repeated here. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see the Electronic Access section of this preamble). A summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of RFA section 604 follows.

    Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the IRFA, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such Comments

    There were no issues raised about the IRFA in the public comments; therefore no changes were made with regard to issues discussed in the IRFA.

    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rule Applies

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily 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 SBA defines a small business as one that is:

    • Independently owned and operated; • Not dominant in its field of operation; • Has annual receipts that do not exceed— ○ $20.5 million in the case of commercial finfish harvesting entities (NAIC 1 114111)

    1 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy.

    ○ $5.5 million in the case of commercial shellfish harvesting entities (NAIC 114112) ○ $7.5 million in the case of for-hire fishing entities (NAIC 114119); or • Has fewer than— ○ 750 employees in the case of fish processors; or ○ 100 employees in the case of fish dealers.

    This final rule impacts recreational fish harvesting entities engaged in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. An estimated 104 recreational charter entities targeted groundfish in Oregon in 2014. Each of these vessels had an estimated average revenue of $35,743 from groundfish, from a total annual average revenue of $116,453, with other significant revenue earned in the salmon, tuna/albacore, and shellfish fisheries.

    In 2015 there were 106,504 angler trips in the Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries. This accounted for $14,225,329 in trip-related expenses (excludes durable goods) and 327 jobs in the state of Oregon.

    Many charter operations in Oregon earn a majority of their revenue from salmon fishing, however given the natural variability of the salmon fishery year to year, there is a potential for more commercial charter operations to turn to groundfish if the salmon fishery declines.

    Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    There are no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule.

    Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes

    The economic impact of the measures in this rule are discussed in section 3.4 of the final Environmental Assessment (EA) (see the Electronic Access section of this preamble) and are not repeated here. This rule is expected to give recreational charter entities in Oregon increased flexibility to pursue groundfish fishing opportunities, which is expected to provide positive economic impacts. The rule does not limit any existing activity or impose any mandatory new costs on the fleet, so the overall benefit to small entities is expected to be slightly positive, as some or most vessels may not choose to participate in the midwater fishery due to increased fuel costs from the distance required to travel, and because of midwater gear requirements.

    The EA analyzed three alternatives in addition to a no action alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) allows private and charter recreational vessels use long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fm depth curve from April to September. The other two alternatives would have allowed the same vessels to use long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fm depth curve from July to September (Alternative 2) or in the month of August (Alternative 3). All of the action alternatives are expected to result in minor beneficial economic impacts, with the preferred alternative providing the largest window of time for the recreational harvest to occur, and thus providing the greatest likely economic benefits. As all of the alternatives would provide positive benefits, there were no alternatives rejected that would have mitigated adverse effects on small entities.

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS will send a small entity compliance guide to interested parties via the groundfish email list server. In addition, copies of this final rule and guides (i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS at the following website: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 23, 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 660 is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 660.351, add in alphabetical order the definition of “long-leader gear” as follows:
    § 660.351 Recreational fishery—definitions.

    Long-leader gear (also known as Holloway gear) means fishing gear with the following: One fishing line, deployed with a sinker and no more than three hooks, with a minimum of 30 feet (9.14 meters) between the sinker and the lowest hook, and a non-compressible float attached to the line above the hooks. The gear may be equipped with artificial lures and flies less than or equal to 5 inches in length. Natural bait, and lures or flies greater than 5 inches in length, may not be used.

    3. In § 660.360, paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(B) and (c)(2)(iii)(B) are revised to read as follows:
    § 660.360 Recreational fishery—management measures.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) Recreational rockfish conservation area (RCA). Fishing for groundfish with recreational gear is prohibited within the recreational RCA, a type of closed area or groundfish conservation area. It is unlawful to take and retain, possess, or land groundfish taken with recreational gear within the recreational RCA. A vessel fishing in the recreational RCA may not be in possession of any groundfish. [For example, if a vessel fishes in the recreational salmon fishery within the RCA, the vessel cannot be in possession of groundfish while within the RCA. The vessel may, however, on the same trip fish for and retain groundfish shoreward of the RCA on the return trip to port.] Off Oregon, from April 1 through September 30, recreational fishing for groundfish is prohibited seaward of a recreational RCA boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour, except that fishing for flatfish (other than Pacific halibut) is allowed seaward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour when recreational fishing for groundfish is permitted, and fishing with long-leader gear (as defined in § 660.351) is allowed seaward of the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour (i.e., within the RCA) from April 1 through September 30. Coordinates for the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour are listed at § 660.71.

    (iii) * * *

    (B) Lingcod. There is a 3 fish limit per day for lingcod from January 1 through December 31. The minimum size for lingcod retained in the Oregon recreational fishery is 22 in (56 cm) total length. For vessels using long-leader gear (as defined in § 660.351) and fishing inside the recreational RCA, possession of lingcod is prohibited.

    [FR Doc. 2018-06316 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 170817779-8161-02] RIN 0648-XG120 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; modification of a closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of northern rockfish in the BSAI.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 26, 2018, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., April 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0108, by either of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0108, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Pursuant to the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018), NMFS closed directed fishing for northern rockfish under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii).

    As of March 21, 2018, NMFS has determined that approximately 4,800 metric tons of northern rockfish initial TAC remains unharvested in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2018 TAC of northern rockfish in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the BSAI. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters in this area. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of northern rockfish in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of northern rockfish in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 21, 2018.

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

    Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for northern rockfish in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 10, 2018.

    This action is required by §§ 679.20 and 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06330 Filed 3-26-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 61 Thursday, March 29, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0034] RIN 0579-AE33 Importation of Pummelo From Thailand Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be subject to a systems approach that would include irradiation treatment, packinghouse processing requirements, and port of entry inspection. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Thailand. This action would allow for the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0034.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0034, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0034 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Claudia A. Ferguson, MS, Senior Regulatory Policy Coordinator, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-82, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests.

    The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh pummelo fruit (Citrus maxima (Berm.) Merr.) from Thailand. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Thailand has requested that APHIS amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercially produced fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States. In evaluating Thailand's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov website (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA, titled “Importation of Fruit of Pummelo, Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr., from Thailand into the Continental United States” (December 2017) analyzes the potential pest risk associated with the importation of fresh pummelo fruit into the continental United States from Thailand.

    The PRA identifies 21 actionable pests that could be introduced into the United States in consignments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand. The pests listed in the PRA are as follows:

    Bactrocera correcta Bezzi, guava fruit fly;

    Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett, melon fruit fly;

    Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel, oriental fruit fly;

    Bactrocera papayae Drew & Hancock, Asian papaya fruit fly;

    Bactrocera tau Walker, a complex of fruit flies;

    Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, pink wax scale;

    Citripestis sagittiferella Moore, citrus fruit borer;

    Eotetranychus cendanai Rimando, citrus yellow mite;

    Monacrostichus citricola Bezzi, a fruit fly;

    Nipaecoccus viridis Newstead, spherical mealybug;

    Paradrosophila punctipennis Duda, a fruit fly;

    Phyllosticta citriasiana Wulandari, Crous & Gruyter, the causal agent for citrus tan spot;

    Phyllosticta citricarpa, the causal agent for citrus black spot;

    Planococcus lilacinus Cockerell, cacao mealybug;

    Prays citri Millière, citrus flower moth;

    Prays endocarpa Meyrick, citrus pock caterpillar;

    Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel, citriculus mealybug;

    Rastrococcus spinosus Robinson, Philippine mango mealybug;

    Rastrococcus tropicasiaticus Williams, a mealybug;

    Schizotetranychus baltazari Rimando, Bamboo spider mite; and

    Xanthomonas citri Gabriel et al. (XCC), the causal agent for citrus canker.

    Based on the findings of the PRA, APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of entry inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these pests. These measures are identified in the RMD and are used as the basis for the requirements included in this proposed rule. We are therefore proposing to allow the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States if it is produced and shipped in accordance with the systems approach as described below. The requirements of the systems approach would be added to the regulations as a new § 319.56-83.

    Commercial Consignments

    Only commercial consignments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be accepted for import into the continental United States. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, or is grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packing, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.

    Treatments

    Under this proposed rule, fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be required to be treated with a minimum absorbed irradiation dose of 400 Gy in accordance with § 305.9 of the phytosanitary treatment regulations in 7 CFR part 305. This is the established generic dose for all insect pests except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.

    While it is true that three of the quarantine pests associated with fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand are Lepidopteran, irradiation in conjunction with other mitigations against Lepidopteran pests, can provide phytosanitary protection for several reasons:

    • While the treatment is not lethal to pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera, it is lethal to larvae. Larvae are of greatest phytosanitary concern given that they are internal feeders and may therefore be overlooked upon inspection.

    • Irradiation tends to prevent normal adult emergence from the pupal stage.

    • Irradiation also causes sterility in pupae and emerged adults, preventing further larval reproduction. Moreover, pupae and adult Lepidoptera are unlikely to be associated with fresh pummelo fruit.

    The shipments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would also have to meet all other relevant treatment requirements in part 305.

    Packinghouse Procedures

    Those plant pests associated with the importation pathway for fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand that are non-Insecta (XCC, P. citriasiana, and P. citricarpa), Insecta but not neutralized by irradiation (E. cendanai and S. baltazari), and the pupae and adult forms of lepidoptera (C. sagittiferella, P. citri, and P. endocarpa), require the application of additional mitigations. Prior to packing, the fresh pummelo fruit would have to be washed, brushed, and disinfested. The fresh pummelo fruit would also be required to be submerged in a surfactant, treated for XCC with an APHIS-approved surface disinfectant, and treated for P. citriasiana and P. citricarpa with an APHIS-approved fungicide. These packinghouse processing requirements will ensure that all pests of concern not mitigated by irradiation are removed from the importation pathway.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    A phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Thailand would have to accompany each consignment of fresh pummelo fruit. If the fresh pummelo fruit was irradiated in Thailand, the fresh pummelo fruit would have to be jointly inspected by APHIS and the NPPO of Thailand, and the phytosanitary certificate would have to contain additional declarations attesting to this joint inspection and to the irradiation of the fresh pummelo fruit in Thailand. If the fresh pummelo fruit will be irradiated upon arrival in the United States, these additional declarations would not be needed.

    The phytosanitary certificate ensures the fresh pummelo fruit was inspected by the NPPO of Thailand, and certifies that the fresh pummelo fruit meets our requirements for export to the continental United States. Additional declarations provide assurances regarding joint inspection and proper administration of irradiation treatment.

    Port of Entry Inspection

    Shipments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be subject to inspection at the port of entry. This will provide an additional layer of phytosanitary protection in order to prevent the dissemination of plant pests into the continental United States.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov website (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    Pummelo is a relatively minor citrus fruit for which there is limited information. There are no official statistics on the volume or value of pummelos produced or consumed in the United States. Agricultural statistics for California report that the area planted in pummelo and hybrid groves in 2016 totaled 1,587 acres. California production that year totaled 540,000 boxes, or about 19,595 metric tons, and had a farm gate value of $9.04 million. The expected volume of imports from Thailand would be the equivalent of about 1 percent of California's pummelo production. Unofficially, there are about 100 pummelo growers in California. The majority of these producers likely operate as small entities, given that this is true for producers of citrus fruit generally.

    Information on pummelo production in Arizona, Florida, or Texas is not available. U.S. import and export data specific to pummelo are also not available because pummelo is grouped with grapefruit in Department of Commerce trade statistics (Harmonized Tariff Schedule 080540).

    Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh pummelo fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Thailand under a systems approach. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh pummelo fruit imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0034. Please send a copy of your comments to the USDA using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.

    APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be subject to a systems approach that would include irradiation treatment, packinghouse processing requirements, and port of entry inspection. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Thailand. This action would allow for the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.

    Implementing this information collection will require respondents to complete phytosanitary certificates and port of entry inspections.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as 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).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.67 hours per response.

    Respondents: Foreign businesses and the NPPO of Thailand.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 2.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 18.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 36.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 24 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) Copies can also be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483. APHIS will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    E-Government Act Compliance

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

    Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

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

    Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

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

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

    2. Section 319.56-83 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-83 Pummelo From Thailand.

    Fresh pummelo fruit (Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr.) (Rutaceae) may be imported into the continental United States from Thailand under the following conditions:

    (a) Commercial consignments. The fresh pummelo fruit must be shipped in commercial consignments only.

    (b) Irradiation treatment. The fresh pummelo fruit must be treated with irradiation in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.

    (c) Packinghouse procedures. Prior to packing, the fresh pummelo fruit must be washed, brushed, disinfested, submerged in surfactant, treated for Xanthomonas citri Gabriel et al. with an APHIS-approved surface disinfectant, and treated for Phyllosticta citriasiana and Phyllosticta citricarpa with an APHIS-approved fungicide.

    (d) Phytosanitary certificate. Each shipment of fresh pummelo fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Thailand. If the fresh pummelo fruit was irradiated in Thailand, each consignment of fruit must be inspected jointly in Thailand by APHIS and the NPPO of Thailand, and the phytosanitary certificate must contain an additional declaration attesting to irradiation of the fresh pummelo fruit in accordance with part 305 of this chapter. If the fresh pummelo fruit will be irradiated upon arrival into the continental United States, joint inspection in Thailand and an additional declaration on the phytosanitary certificate are not required.

    (e) Port of entry inspection. Consignments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand are subject to inspection at ports of entry in the continental United States.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06288 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0167; Product Identifier 2017-NM-131-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 ATR42 and Model ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in main landing gear (MLG) universal joints (U-joints). This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the affected U-joints for cracks, and replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14, 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 Safran Landing Systems, Inovel Parc Sud-7, rue Général Valérie André, 78140 VELIZY-VILLACOUBLAY—FRANCE; phone: +33 (0) 1 46 29 81 00; internet: www.safran-landing-systems.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0167; 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 St., 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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0167; Product Identifier 2017-NM-131-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 Airworthiness Directive 2017-0172, dated September 7, 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 ATR42 and Model ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurences were reported of finding cracked universal joints (U-joints) Part Number (P/N) D56805, P/N D56805-2, P/N D61036 and P/N D62050. Subsequent investigation identified a batch of affected U-joints which were subjected to a possible non-detected thermal abuse done during the grinding process by the U-joint manufacturer in production, or by a maintenance organization during overhaul and/or repair.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG structural failure and subsequent collapse of the MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, SAFRAN Landing Systems (SLS), published Service Bulletin (SB) 631-32-249 for MLGs fitted on ATR42-200, ATR42-300 and ATR42-320; SB 631-32-250 for MLGs fitted on ATR42-400 and ATR42-500; and SB 631-32-251 for MLGs fitted on ATR72 (all models), to provide inspection instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections (DVI) of the affected U-joints for cracks, and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable part [and provides an optional terminating action].

    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-2018-0167.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Safran Landing Systems has issued Service Bulletin 631-32-249, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017; Service Bulletin 631-32-250, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017; and Service Bulletin 631-32-251, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017. The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the affected U-joints for cracking, and replacement if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 62 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle $0 $85 per inspection cycle $5,270 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $14,083 $14,763

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    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-2018-0167; Product Identifier 2017-NM-131-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 14, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in certain main landing gear (MLG) universal joints (U-joints). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in MLG U-joints, which could lead to MLG structural failure and subsequent collapse of the MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected U-joint is any U-joint identified by part number (P/N) and serial number in the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) For Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems Service Bulletin 631-32-249, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017.

    (ii) For Model ATR42-500 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems Service Bulletin 631-32-250, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017.

    (iii) For Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes: Safran Landing Systems Service Bulletin 631-32-251, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017.

    (2) For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable part is an affected U-joint, as defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, released to service by Safran Landing Systems, free of defect, with the letter “V” added on the part (on the identification plate, or in the vicinity of the P/N marking); or a new (never installed) U-joint; or a U-joint repaired as specified in the applicable component maintenance manual (CMM) identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii).

    (i) For Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-28, Rev. 10 or Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-30, Rev. 8, both dated June 2, 2017.

    (ii) For Model ATR42-500 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-45, Rev. 5 or Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-63, Rev. 6, both dated June 2, 2017.

    (iii) For Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes: Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-34, Rev. 9, dated June 2, 2017.

    (h) Repetitive Inspections

    Within 3 months or 500 flight cycles (FC), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 FC: Do a detailed inspection for damage or cracking of each affected U-joint, as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Corrective Action

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any damaged or cracked U-joint is found, before further flight: Replace the U-joint of the affected MLG with a serviceable part, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (j) Terminating Action

    Replacement on an airplane of all affected U-joints, as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, with serviceable parts, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane.

    (k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an affected U-joint, as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, unless it is a serviceable part, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

    (l) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(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 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0172, dated September 7, 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-2018-0167.

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

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Safran Landing Systems, Inovel Parc Sud-7, rue Général Valérie André, 78140 VELIZY-VILLACOUBLAY—FRANCE; phone: +33 (0) 1 46 29 81 00; internet: www.safran-landing-systems.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 15, 2018. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06270 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0137; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-2] Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, NE AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as a surface area and remove the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class E surface area at Columbus Municipal Airport, Columbus, NE. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and as the result of an FAA airspace review. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0137; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-2 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0137; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:

    Amend the Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.2-mile radius (reduced from a 4.7-mile radius) at Columbus Municipal Airport, Columbus, NE; remove the Columbus VOR/DME and the extensions to the southeast and northwest of the airport as they are no longer needed to define this boundary; remove the NOTAM part-time language from the airspace description; and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    Establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class E surface area at Columbus Municipal Airport within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 150° radial from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7.0 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 309° radial from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7.7 miles northwest of the airport; and

    Amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from a 7.7-mile radius) of Columbus Municipal Airport; remove the Columbus Municipal ILS Localizer, Platte Center NDB, and the associated northwest extension; amend the extension to the southeast to within 2.4 miles (increased from 1.6 miles) each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 150° (previously 157°) radial from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.0 miles (decreased from 11 miles) southeast of the airport; add an extension 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 309° radial extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.7 miles northeast of the airport; and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to a request from Minneapolis ARTCC, to bring the airspace into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace, and to support the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas. ACE NE E2 Columbus, NE [Amended] Columbus Municipal Airport, NE (Lat. 41°26′55″ N, long. 97°20′34″ W) Within a 4.7 mile radius of Columbus Municipal Airport.

    Paragraph 6004. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

    ACE MO E4 Columbus, NE [New] Columbus Municipal Airport, NE (Lat. 41°26′55″ N, long. 97°20′34″ W) Columbus VOR/DME (Lat. 41°27′00″ N, long. 97°20′27″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 150° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of Columbus Municipal Airport to 7.0 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 309° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of Columbus Municipal Airport to 7.7 miles northwest of the airport. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE NE E5 Columbus, NE [Amended] Columbus Municipal Airport, NE (Lat. 41°26′55″ N, long. 97°20′34″ W) Columbus VOR/DME (Lat. 41°27′00″ N, long. 97°20′27″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Columbus Municipal Airport and within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 150° radial extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.0 miles southeast of the airport and within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 309°radial extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.7 miles northwest of the airport.
    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 21, 2018. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06246 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Chapter I [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1214] Medical Gas Regulation; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments; public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing an additional public workshop on medical gas regulation entitled “Medical Gas Regulation: Workshop III.” FDA has previously held two public workshops entitled “Medical Gas Regulation: Workshop I” and “Medical Gas Regulation: Workshop II.” The topic to be discussed is potential areas of Federal drug regulation that should be revised with respect to medical gases.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on May 11, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by August 9, 2018. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Rm. 1503 (the “Great Room”), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 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. The workshop is free and seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Attendees who do not wish to make an oral presentation do not need to register.

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments may not be considered. For timely consideration, we request that electronic comments on workshop topics be submitted before or within 90 days after each workshop (i.e., comments submitted by or before March 15, 2018, for Workshop I; May 10, 2018, for Workshop II; and August 9, 2018, for Workshop III). FDA has one shared docket for all workshops. However, with this notice, the docket number will change from FDA-2017-N-0001 to FDA-2018-N-1214. All comments submitted on the previous docket number will be transferred to the new docket number. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 9, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before the relevant date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1214 for “Medical Gas Regulation.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Kirk, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2465, Fax: 301-847-8440, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On May 5, 2017, President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31). Section 756 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act requires FDA to issue final regulations revising Federal drug regulations with respect to medical gases. These public workshops are being held as part of FDA's implementation of the requirements of section 756.

    Since the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), FDA has engaged in multiple activities related to medical gases, including rulemaking. For example, in 2016, FDA issued the final rule “Medical Gas Containers and Closures: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements” (81 FR 81685; November 18, 2016). Other activities include FDA's June 2017 revised draft guidance for industry on current good manufacturing practice for medical gases,1 updated guidance for FDA inspectors regarding medical gases (March 2015),2 an extensive review of Federal drug regulations related to medical gases from 2012 to 2014 (a report on the review was submitted to Congress in 2015),3 and implementation of FDASIA's requirements regarding certification of medical gases (to date, over 70 certifications have been granted).

    1 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070270.pdf.

    2 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/ComplianceProgramManual/UCM125417.pdf.

    3 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/lawsenforcedbyfda/significantamendmentstothefdcact/fdasia/ucm453727.pdf.

    FDA intends to engage in additional rulemaking in this area in accordance with section 756 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017. To conduct rulemaking as efficiently as possible, FDA intends to build on the information and stakeholder input received since FDASIA's enactment. As noted in more detail below, FDA invites comments from stakeholders on specific medical gas issues that could or should be addressed in regulation.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshops

    We are holding these workshops to provide an opportunity for medical gas manufacturers and any other interested members of the public to provide input on potential areas of Federal drug regulation that should be revised with respect to medical gases.

    We are asking stakeholders to comment on existing medical gas issues that, in their view, should be addressed by regulation change (rather than through other means, such as revisions to guidance or inspection practices). Commenters should include concrete and specific reasons that rulemaking is preferable to other options. Commenters' views regarding the prioritization of particular rulemaking proposals would also be helpful. As noted above, the https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 9, 2018. Late comments may not be considered.

    During Workshop I (December 2017), FDA and workshop participants discussed the anticipated scope of the medical gas rulemaking, as well as three regulations to which stakeholders have previously requested changes: Part 201 (21 CFR part 201) (labeling generally and labeling for medical air specifically), part 207 (21 CFR part 207) (registration and listing), and parts 210 and 211 (21 CFR parts 210 and 211) (current good manufacturing practice). A stakeholder presentation addressed parts 201, 210, and 211, among other things, including initial stakeholder views on the possibility of having one or more separate CFR sections for designated medical gases. FDA also heard comments on additional regulations and medical gas issues as time allowed.

    During Workshop II (February 2018), FDA and workshop participants discussed parts 310, 314, and 514 (21 CFR parts 310, 314, and 514) (postmarket reporting of adverse drug experiences, including adverse reactions and medication errors) and the intersection of regulations for medical gases and regulations for medical devices and animal drugs. A stakeholder presentation also addressed, among other things, followup information related to Workshop I topics, including part 207 (registration and listing) and parts 210 and 211 (current good manufacturing practice), including the possibility of one or more separate CFR sections for designated medical gases, as well as additional topics including the certification process for designated medical gases and issues related to the filling of oxygen containers by emergency medical service (EMS) providers and health care facilities. FDA also heard comments on additional regulations and medical gas issues as time allowed.

    The Agency has determined that we will hold a third workshop to hear additional comments from stakeholders regarding the issues discussed at Workshops I and II, as well as any additional topics related to medical gas regulation that stakeholders may wish to discuss, as time allows. This workshop is primarily intended to build on the discussion from the previous workshops, as well as written comments submitted to the docket.

    During Workshop III (May 11, 2018), FDA intends to provide designated panel time for followup discussion of several topics raised at previous workshops, and for an open panel to discuss any additional issues related to medical gas regulation that are of interest to FDA or other workshop participants. The topics for designated panel time include further consideration of potential changes to: Part 201 (labeling); parts 210 and 211 (current good manufacturing practice); part 207 (registration and listing); and parts 310, 314, and 514 (postmarket reporting of adverse drug experiences, including adverse reactions and medication errors); including the possibility of one or more separate CFR sections for designated medical gases. Potential topics for open panel time include, but are not limited to: The certification process for designated medical gases; issues related to the filling of oxygen containers by EMS providers and health care facilities; or other topics of interest to stakeholders.

    III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: If you wish to a make an oral presentation, you must register by submitting your name, title, firm name, address, telephone, email address, and Fax number to [email protected] (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by May 4, 2018, for Workshop III. Please also indicate the type of organization you represent (e.g., industry, consumer organization) and a brief summary of your remarks (including the discussion topic(s) that you would like to address).

    FDA will try to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation; however, the duration of each speaker's presentation may be limited by time constraints. FDA will notify registered presenters of their scheduled presentation times. Persons registered to speak should check in before the workshop and are encouraged to arrive early to ensure their designated order of presentation. Participants who are not present when called may not be permitted to speak at a later time. An agenda will be made available at least 3 days before the workshop at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm582091.htm. FDA may also post specific questions for consideration at the meeting web page; these will be made available at least 3 days before the workshop at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm582091.htm.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshops: This public workshop will be webcast; the URL will be posted at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm582091.htm at least 1 day before the workshop. A video record of the public workshops will be available at the same website address for 1 year. If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact [email protected] (or see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the workshop.

    Dated: March 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06251 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479 [Docket No. 2017R-22; AG Order No. 4132-2018] RIN 1140-AA52 Bump-Stock-Type Devices AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Daylight Time on the last day of the comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2017R-22, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 648-9741.

    Mail: Vivian Chu, Mailstop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226. ATTN: 2017R-22.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice of proposed rulemaking. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 1, 2017, a shooter attacked a large crowd attending an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. By using several AR-type rifles with attached bump-stock-type devices, the shooter was able to fire several hundred rounds of ammunition in a short period of time, killing 58 people and injuring over 800. The bump-stock-type devices recovered from the hotel room from which the shooter conducted the attack included two distinct, but functionally equivalent, model variations from the same manufacturer. These devices were readily available in the commercial marketplace through online sales directly from the manufacturer, and through multiple retailers. The manufacturer of these devices is the primary manufacturer and seller of bump-stock-type devices; it has obtained multiple patents for its designs, and has rigorously enforced the patents to prevent competitors from infringing them. Consequently, at the time of the attack, very few competing bump-stock-type devices were available in the marketplace.

    The devices used in Las Vegas and the other bump-stock-type devices currently available on the market all utilize essentially the same functional design. They are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of allowing “rapid fire” operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which they are affixed. They are configured with a sliding shoulder stock molded (or otherwise attached) to a pistol-grip/handle (or “chassis”) that includes an extension ledge (or “finger rest”) on which the shooter places the trigger finger while shooting the firearm. The devices also generally include a detachable rectangular receiver module (or “bearing interface”) that is placed in the receiver well of the device's pistol-grip/handle to assist in guiding and regulating the recoil of the firearm when fired.

    These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.

    In general, bump-stock-type devices—including those currently on the market with the characteristics described above—are designed to channel recoil energy to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms from a single trigger pull. Specifically, they are designed to allow the shooter to maintain a continuous firing cycle after a single pull of the trigger by directing the recoil energy of the discharged rounds into the space created by the sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches) in constrained linear rearward and forward paths. Ordinarily, to operate a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter must repeatedly pull and release the trigger to allow it to reset, so that only one shot is fired with each pull of the trigger. When a bump-stock-type device is affixed to a semiautomatic firearm, however, the device harnesses the recoil energy to slide the firearm back and forth so that the trigger automatically re-engages by “bumping” the shooter's stationary trigger finger without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. The bump-stock-type device functions as a self-acting and self-regulating force that channels the firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device's extension ledge (as designed). No further physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter is required.

    In 2006, ATF concluded that certain bump-stock-type devices qualified as machineguns under the GCA and NFA. Specifically, ATF concluded that devices attached to semiautomatic firearms that use an internal spring to harness the force of the recoil so that the firearm shoots more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger are machineguns. Between 2008 and 2017, however, ATF also issued classification decisions concluding that other bump-stock-type devices were not machineguns, including a device submitted by the manufacturer of the bump-stock-type devices used in the Las Vegas shooting. Those decisions did not include extensive legal analysis relating to the definition of “machinegun.” Nonetheless, they indicated that semiautomatic firearms modified with these bump-stock-type devices did not fire “automatically,” and were thus not “machineguns,” because the devices did not rely on internal springs or similar mechanical parts to channel recoil energy. ATF has now determined that that conclusion does not reflect the best interpretation of the term “machinegun” under the GCA and NFA. In this proposed rule, the Department accordingly interprets the definition of “machinegun” to clarify that all bump-stock-type devices are “machineguns” under the GCA and NFA because they convert a semiautomatic firearm into a firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

    I. Background

    The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as amended, and the NFA, as amended.1 This includes the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(ii), 7805(a). The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF, subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2). The Department and ATF have promulgated regulations implementing both the GCA and the NFA. See 27 CFR pts. 478, 479. In particular, while still part of the Department of the Treasury, ATF for decades promulgated rules governing “the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacture, making, exportation, identification and registration of, and the dealing in, machine guns.” 27 CFR 479.1; see, e.g., United States v. Dodson, 519 F. App'x 344, 348-49 & n.4 (6th Cir. 2013) (acknowledging ATF's role in interpreting the NFA's definition of “machinegun”); F.J. Vollmer Co. v. Higgins, 23 F.3d 448, 449-51 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (upholding an ATF determination regarding machinegun receivers). Courts have recognized ATF's leading regulatory role with respect to firearms, including in the specific context of classifying devices as machineguns under the NFA. See, e.g., York v. Sec'y of Treasury, 774 F.2d 417, 419-20 (10th Cir. 1985).

    1 NFA provisions still refer to the “Secretary of the Treasury.” 26 U.S.C. ch. 53. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), transferred the functions of ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of reference, this notice refers to the Attorney General.

    The GCA defines “machinegun” by referring to the NFA definition,2 which includes “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The term “machinegun” also includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon or any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and “any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” Id. With limited exceptions, the GCA prohibits the transfer or possession of machineguns under 18 U.S.C. 922(o).3

    2 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23).

    3 Regulations implementing the GCA and the NFA spell the term “machine gun” rather than “machinegun.” E.g., 27 CFR 478.11, 479.11. For convenience, this notice uses “machinegun” except when quoting a source to the contrary.

    In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub. L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, which included a provision that effectively froze the number of legally transferrable machineguns to those that were registered before May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Due to the fixed universe of “pre-1986” machineguns that may be lawfully transferred by nongovernmental entities, the value of those machineguns has steadily increased over time. For example, the current average price range for pre-1986 fully automatic versions of AR-type rifles is between $20,000 and $30,000, while the price range for semiautomatic versions of these rifles is between $600 and $2,500.4

    4 These figures are based on a review of prices posted on websites maintained by federal firearms licensees on March 1, 2018.

    This price premium on automatic weapons has spurred inventors and manufacturers to attempt to develop firearms, triggers, and other devices that permit shooters to use semiautomatic rifles to replicate automatic fire without converting these rifles into “machineguns” under the GCA and NFA. ATF began receiving classification requests for such firearms, triggers, and other devices in the period from 1988 to 1990. ATF has observed a significant increase in such requests since 2004, often in connection with rifle models that were, until 2004, defined as “semiautomatic assault weapons” and prohibited under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30) (commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) (repealed effective Sept. 13, 2004). Consistent with ATF's experience, the inventor and manufacturer of the bump-stock-type devices used in the Las Vegas shooting has attributed his innovation of those products specifically to the high cost of fully automatic firearms. In a 2011 interview, he stated that he developed the original device because he “couldn't afford what [he] wanted—a fully automatic rifle—so . . . [he made] something that would work and be affordable.” 5

    5 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), http://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.

    II. ATF's Determinations Regarding Bump-Stock-Type Devices

    Shooters use bump-stock-type devices with semiautomatic firearms to accelerate the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire. Such devices are designed principally to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms. These devices replace a rifle's standard stock and free the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the firearm's recoil either through a mechanism like an internal spring or in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure (typically constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and constant rearward pressure on the device's extension ledge with the shooter's trigger finger).

    As noted above, ATF has regulated some of these devices as machineguns. Other bump-stock-type devices currently on the market, however, have not been regulated by ATF as machineguns under the GCA or NFA, and thus have not typically been marked with a serial number and other identification markings. Individuals therefore may purchase these devices without undergoing a background check or complying with any other federal regulations applicable to firearms.

    A. ATF's Interpretation of “Single Function of the Trigger”

    In 2002, an inventor submitted a device known as the “Akins Accelerator” to ATF for classification. To operate the Akins Accelerator, the shooter initiated an automatic firing sequence by pulling the trigger one time, which in turn caused the rifle to recoil within the stock, permitting the trigger to lose contact with the finger and manually reset. Springs in the Akins Accelerator then forced the rifle forward, forcing the trigger against the finger, which caused the weapon to discharge the ammunition. The recoil and the spring-powered device thus caused the firearm to cycle back and forth, impacting the trigger finger, which remained rearward in a constant pull without further input by the shooter while the firearm discharged multiple shots. The device was advertised as able to fire approximately 650 rounds per minute. See ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 2.

    ATF's classification of the Akins Accelerator focused on application of the “single function of the trigger” prong of the statutory definition of “machinegun.” In an initial assessment of the Akins Accelerator, ATF concluded that the device did not qualify as a machinegun because ATF interpreted “single function of the trigger” to mean a single movement of the trigger itself. In 2006, however, ATF undertook a further review of the Akins Accelerator based on how it actually functioned when sold. ATF determined that the Akins Accelerator was properly classified as a machinegun because the best interpretation of the phrase “single function of the trigger” was a “single pull of the trigger.” 6 The Akins Accelerator thus qualified as a machinegun because ATF determined through testing that when the device was installed on a semiautomatic rifle (specifically a Ruger Model 10-22), it resulted in a weapon that “[with] a single pull of the trigger initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until the finger is released, the weapon malfunctions, or the ammunition supply is exhausted.” Akins v. United States, No. 8:08-cv-988, slip op. at 5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    6 In classifying the Akins Accelerator, ATF used the term “pull” specifically because that was the manner in which the firearm's trigger was activated with the device. For purposes of analyzing firearms and devices designed for use on firearms, however, the term “pull” is interchangeable with terminology describing all trigger activations, including a push or a flip of a switch. See, e.g., United States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 655-56 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding that a “trigger is a mechanism used to initiate a firing sequence,” and rejecting the argument that a “switch” could not be a trigger, because such a definition would “lead to the absurd result of enabling persons to avoid the NFA simply by using weapons that employ a button or switch mechanism for firing” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

    In conjunction with its reclassification of the Akins Accelerator, ATF published ATF Ruling 2006-2, “Classification of Devices Exclusively Designed to Increase the Rate of Fire of a Semiautomatic Firearm.” The Ruling explained that ATF had received requests from “several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.” ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 1. After setting forth a detailed description of the components and functionality of the Akins Accelerator and devices with similar designs, ATF Ruling 2006-2 determined that the phrase “single function of the trigger” in the statutory definition of “machinegun” was best interpreted to mean a “single pull of the trigger.” Id. at 2 (citing National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Comm. on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Second Session on H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., at 40 (1934)). ATF further indicated that it would apply this interpretation to its classification of devices designed to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms. Thus, ATF concluded in Ruling 2006-2 that devices exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms are machineguns if, “when activated by a single pull of the trigger, [such devices] initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.” Id. at 3. Finally, because the “single pull of the trigger” interpretation constituted a change from ATF's prior interpretations of the phrase “single function of the trigger,” Ruling 2006-2 concluded that “[t]o the extent previous ATF rulings are inconsistent with this determination, they are hereby overruled.” Id.

    Following its reclassification of the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, ATF determined that removal and disposal of the internal spring would render the device a non-machinegun under the statutory definition. Hence, ATF advised individuals who had purchased the Akins Accelerator that they had the option of removing and disposing of the internal spring, thereby placing the device outside the classification of machinegun and allowing the purchaser/possessor to retain the device in lieu of destroying or surrendering the device.

    The inventor of the Akins Accelerator filed a complaint against the United States in May 2008, challenging the classification of the device as a machinegun as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Akins v. United States, No. 8:08-cv-988, slip op. at 7-8 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2008). The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the plaintiff's challenge, holding that ATF was within its authority to reconsider and change its interpretation of the phrase “single function of the trigger” in the NFA's statutory definition of machinegun. Id. at 14. The court further held that the language of the statute and the legislative history supported ATF's interpretation of the statutory phrase “single function of the trigger” as synonymous with a “single pull of the trigger.” Id. at 11-12. The court concluded that in Ruling 2006-2, ATF had set forth a “`reasoned analysis'” for the application of that new interpretation to the Akins Accelerator and similar devices, including the need to “protect the public from dangerous firearms.” Id. at 12.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that “[t]he interpretation by the Bureau that the phrase `single function of the trigger' means a `single pull of the trigger' is consonant with the statute and its legislative history.” Akins v. United States, 312 F. App'x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The Eleventh Circuit further concluded that “[b]ased on the operation of the Accelerator, the Bureau had the authority to `reconsider and rectify' what it considered to be a classification error.” Id.

    In ten letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, ATF assessed other bump-stock-type devices. Like the Akins Accelerator, these other bump-stock-type devices allowed the shooter to fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. As discussed below, however, ATF ultimately concluded that these devices did not qualify as machineguns because, in ATF's view, they did not “automatically” shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. ATF has also applied the “single pull of the trigger” interpretation to other trigger actuators, two-stage triggers, and other devices submitted to ATF for classification. Depending on the method of operation, some such devices were classified to be machineguns that were required to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.7

    7 Examples of recent ATF classification letters relying on the “single pull of the trigger” interpretation to classify submitted devices as machineguns include the following:

    On April 13, 2015, ATF issued a classification letter regarding a device characterized as a “positive reset trigger,” designed to be used on a semiautomatic AR-style rifle. The device consisted of a support/stock, secondary trigger, secondary trigger link, pivot toggle, shuttle link, and shuttle. ATF determined that, after a single pull of the trigger, the device utilized recoil energy generated from firing a projectile to fire a subsequent projectile. ATF noted that “a `single function of the trigger' is a single pull,” and that the device utilized a “single function of the trigger” because the shooter need not release the trigger to fire a subsequent projectile, and instead “can maintain constant pressure through a single function of the trigger.”

    On October 7, 2016, ATF issued a classification letter regarding two devices described as “LV-15 Trigger Reset Devices.” The devices, which were designed to be used on an AR-type rifle, were essentially identical in design and function and were submitted by the same requestor (per the requestor, the second device included “small improvements that have come as the result of further development since the original submission”). The devices were each powered by a rechargeable battery and included the following components: a self-contained trigger mechanism with an electrical connection, a modified two-position semiautomatic AR-15 type selector lever, a rechargeable battery pack, a grip assembly/trigger guard with electrical connections, and a piston that projects forward through the lower rear portion of the trigger guard and pushes the trigger forward as the firearm cycles. ATF held that “to initiate the firing . . . a shooter must simply pull the trigger.” It explained that although the mechanism pushed the trigger forward, “the shooter never releases the trigger. Consistent with [the requestor's] explanation, ATF demonstrated that the device fired multiple projectiles with a “single function of the trigger” because a single pull was all that was required to initiate and maintain a firing sequence.

    B. ATF's Interpretation of “Automatically”

    Prior ATF rulings concerning bump-stock-type devices have not provided substantial legal analysis regarding the meaning of the term “automatically” as it is used in the GCA and NFA. Moreover, ATF's prior rulings concerning such devices have applied different understandings of the term “automatically.” ATF Ruling 2006-2 concluded that devices like the Akins Accelerator initiated an “automatic” firing cycle because, once initiated by a single pull of the trigger, “the automatic firing cycle continues until the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.” ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 1. ATF letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, however, concluded that bump-stock-type devices that enable a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single function of the trigger by harnessing a combination of the recoil and the maintenance of pressure by the shooter do not fire “automatically.” Some of these rulings concluded that such devices were not machineguns because they did not “initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted,” without further defining the term “automatically.” E.g., Letter for Michael Smith from ATF's Firearm Technology Branch Chief (April 2, 2012). Other rulings instead concluded that these bump-stock-type devices were not machineguns because they lacked any “automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and perform[ed] no mechanical function[s] when installed,” again without further defining the term “automatically” in this context. E.g., Letter for David Compton from ATF's Firearm Technology Branch Chief (June 7, 2010).

    III. Las Vegas Mass Shooting and Requests To Regulate Bump-Stock-Type Devices

    Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, ATF has received correspondence from members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as nongovernmental organizations, requesting that ATF examine its past classifications and determine whether bump-stock-type devices currently on the market constitute machineguns under the statutory definition.

    In response, on December 26, 2017, as an initial step in the process of promulgating a federal regulation interpreting the definition of “machinegun” with respect to bump-stock-type devices, ATF published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register. Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices, 82 FR 60929. The ANPRM was limited to soliciting comments concerning the market for bump-stock-type devices and manufacturer and retailer data. Id. at 60930-31. Public comment on the ANPRM concluded on January 25, 2018. While ATF received over 115,000 comments, the vast majority of these comments were not responsive to the ANPRM.

    On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum to Attorney General Sessions concerning “bump fire” stocks and similar devices. 83 FR 7949. The memorandum noted that the Department of Justice had already “started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of `machinegun' under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal.” Id. at 7949. The President then directed the Department of Justice, working within established legal protocols, “to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received [in response to the ANPRM], and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” Id. Publication of this NPRM is the next step in the process of promulgating such a rule.

    Consistent with its authority to “`reconsider and rectify'” potential classification errors, Akins, 312 F. App'x at 200, ATF has reviewed its original classification determinations for bump-stock-type devices from 2008 to 2017 in light of its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, namely the definition of “machinegun.” These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.

    ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns. Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle sequence “by a single function of the trigger” because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). ATF's classifications of bump-stock-devices between 2008 and 2017 did not include extensive legal analysis of these terms in concluding that the bump-stock-type devices at issue were not “machineguns.” The statutory definition of machinegun includes bump-stock-type devices—irrespective of whether the devices harness recoil energy using a mechanism like an internal spring or in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure—because these devices enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Id. This proposed rule is the appropriate mechanism for ATF to set forth its analysis for its changed assessment. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983).

    IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Based on ATF's initial review of the comments it received on the ANPRM, the vast majority of comments concern the legal authority to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Some of those comments opined that the Department has the power to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Most, however, contended that the Department lacks such authority, either because only Congress has the authority to regulate bump-stock-type devices or because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution precludes any federal regulation of such devices.

    The Department disagrees. Congress has granted the Attorney General authority to issue rules to administer the GCA and NFA, and the Attorney General has delegated to ATF the authority to administer and enforce those statutes and implementing regulations. See supra Part I. Because, with some exceptions, the possession of a machinegun is prohibited by the GCA, the Department is well within its authority to issue a rule that further clarifies and interprets the statutory definition of machinegun. Nor is regulation of bump-stock-type devices as machineguns inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), noted that the Second Amendment does not extend to “`dangerous and unusual weapons'” not in “`common use.'” Id. at 627. Heller further observed that it would be “startling” to conclude “that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns . . . might be unconstitutional.” Id. at 624. Since Heller, federal courts of appeals have repeatedly held that federal statutes prohibiting machineguns comport with the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 451 (5th Cir. 2016) (upholding federal statute banning possession of machineguns because they are “dangerous and unusual and therefore not in common use”); accord United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 94-95 (3d Cir. 2010); Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471, 472, 474 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2008). No court has interpreted Heller as encompassing a constitutional right to possess machineguns or machinegun conversion devices.

    Numerous persons commented that bump-stock-type devices do not fall under the statutory definition of “machinegun because, when attached, they do not change the mechanical functioning of a semiautomatic firearm, and still require a separate trigger pull for each fired round.” They noted that bump firing is a technique, and pointed to many other ways in which a shooter can increase a firearm's rate of fire without using a bump-stock-type device.

    The Department disagrees. The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to “shoot * * * automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing without an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition. ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect the best interpretation of the term “automatically” as used in the definition of “machinegun,” because those decisions focused on the lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger. As with the Akins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue cause the trigger to “bump” into the finger, so that the shooter need not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above, ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret “single function of the trigger,” but adopted a better legal and practical interpretation of “function” to encompass the shooter's activation of the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator and other bump-stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until the ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed. Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and the NFA. See infra Part V.

    Commenters also argued that banning bump-stock-type devices will not significantly impact public safety. Again, the Department disagrees. The shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, highlighted the destructive capacity of firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices and the carnage they can inflict. The shooting also made many individuals aware that these devices exist—potentially including persons with criminal or terrorist intentions—and made their potential to threaten public safety obvious. The proposed regulation aims to ameliorate that threat.

    Some commenters objected to any regulation of bump-stock-type devices because, they argued, it will decrease innovation in the firearms accessories market and result in the loss of manufacturing and associated jobs. They suggested that the Federal Government should prevent the misuse of firearms through other means, such as by enforcing existing firearms laws, preventing mentally ill persons from acquiring weapons, and enacting more stringent criminal penalties for those who commit crimes with bump-stock-type devices. However, an important step in the enforcement of existing firearms laws is ensuring that ATF's regulations correctly interpret those laws.

    This proposed rulemaking will have an economic impact, see infra Part VI, but the impact will not be widespread, and the costs associated with this rule are easily exceeded by the benefits it will provide for public safety. The Department also disagrees that the proposed rulemaking will decrease innovation in the firearms accessories market. The fact that more than 65,000 industry professionals from the United States and foreign countries attend the annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, where many new and improved firearms accessories are introduced, is a clear market signal that there is strong demand for innovation and development of new shooting accessories irrespective of whether the bump-stock-type devices described in this rulemaking are prohibited.

    V. Proposed Rule

    The regulations in 27 CFR part 479 contain the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacturing, making, exportation, identification and registration of, and dealing in machineguns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms and weapons under the NFA. Currently, the regulatory definition of “machine gun” in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the NFA quoted in Part I, above. The definition includes the terms “single function of the trigger” and “automatically,” but those terms are not expressly defined in the statutory text. Those terms are best interpreted, however, to encompass firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices. As discussed above, bump-stock-type devices like the Akins Accelerator and other devices that operate to mimic automatic fire when added to semiautomatic rifles present the same risk to public safety that Congress has already deemed unacceptable by enacting and amending the GCA (18 U.S.C. 922(o)). Therefore, the Department proposes to exercise its delegated authority to clarify its interpretations of the statutory terms “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machinegun.” Specifically, the Department proposes to amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the term “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger.” The Department further proposes to amend these regulations by defining the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” Finally, the Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a “machinegun” includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).

    The interpretation of the phrase “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger” reflects ATF's position since 2006, and it is the best interpretation of the statute. The Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), indicated that a machinegun under the NFA “fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger.” Id. at 602 n.1. This interpretation is also consistent with how the phrase “single function of the trigger” was understood at the time of the NFA's enactment in 1934. For instance, in a congressional hearing leading up to the NFA's enactment, the National Rifle Association's then-president testified that a gun “which is capable of firing more than one shot by a single pull of the trigger, a single function of the trigger, is properly regarded, in my opinion, as a machine gun.” National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 40 (1934). Furthermore, and as noted above, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that ATF's interpretation of “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger” “is consonant with the statute and its legislative history.” Akins v. United States, 312 F. App'x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 2009). No other court has held otherwise.8

    8 As used in this proposed rule, the term “pull” is synonymous with “push” and other terms that describe activation of a trigger. The courts have made clear that whether a trigger is operated through a “pull,” “push,” or some other action such as a flipping a switch, does not change the analysis of the functionality of a firearm. For example, in United States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d at 655-56, the Seventh Circuit rejected the argument that a switch did not constitute a trigger for purposes of assessing whether a firearm was a machinegun under the NFA, because such an interpretation of the statute would lead to “the absurd result of enabling persons to avoid the NFA simply by using weapons that employ a button or switch mechanism for firing.” See also United States v. Camp, 343 F.3d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 2003) (“`To construe “trigger” to mean only a small lever moved by a finger would be to impute to Congress the intent to restrict the term to apply only to one kind of trigger, albeit a very common kind. The language [in 18 U.S.C. 922(o)] implies no intent to so restrict the meaning[.]'” (quoting United States v. Jokel, 969 F.2d 132, 135 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis removed))). Examples of machineguns that operate through a trigger activated by a push include the Browning design, M2 .50 caliber, the Vickers, the Maxim, and the M134 hand-fired Minigun.

    Interpreting the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger” also reflects the ordinary meaning of that term at the time of the NFA's enactment in 1934. The word “automatically” is the adverbial form of “automatic,” meaning “[h]aving a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that performs a required act at a predetermined point in an operation[.]” Webster's New International Dictionary 187 (2d ed. 1934); see also 1 Oxford English Dictionary 574 (1933) (defining “Automatic” as “[s]elf-acting under conditions fixed for it, going of itself”).

    Relying on these definitions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit accordingly interpreted the term “automatically” as used in the NFA as “delineat[ing] how the discharge of multiple rounds from a weapon occurs: as the result of a self-acting mechanism” “set in motion by a single function of the trigger and . . . accomplished without manual reloading.” United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652, 658 (7th Cir. 2009). So long as the firearm is capable of producing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger for some period of time, the firearm shoots “automatically” irrespective of why the firing sequence ultimately ends. Id. (“[T]he reason a weapon ceased firing is not a matter with which § 5845(b) is concerned.”). Olofson thus requires only that the weapon shoot multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger “as the result of a self-acting mechanism,” not that the self-acting mechanism produce the firing sequence without any additional action by the shooter. This definition accordingly requires that the self-acting or self-regulating mechanism must perform an act that is primarily responsible for causing the weapon to shoot more than one shot.

    Finally, it is reasonable to conclude, based on these interpretations, that the term “machinegun” includes a device that allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. When a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that firing sequence is “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device's ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included under the definition of machinegun and, therefore, come within the purview of the NFA.

    The GCA and its implementing regulations in 27 CFR part 478 incorporate the NFA's definition of machinegun. Accordingly, this proposed rule makes the same amendments to the definitions of “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machine gun” in 27 CFR 478.11.

    The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended, does not include the term “machinegun” in its key provision, 22 U.S.C. 2778. However, regulations in 27 CFR part 447 that implement the AECA include a similar definition of “machinegun,” and explain that machineguns, submachineguns, machine pistols, and fully automatic rifles fall within Category I(b) of the U.S. Munitions Import List when those defense articles are permanently imported. See 27 CFR 447.11, 447.21. Currently, the definition of “machinegun” in § 447.11 provides that “[a] `machinegun', `machine pistol', `submachinegun', or `automatic rifle' is a firearm originally designed to fire, or capable of being fired fully automatically by a single pull of the trigger.” This proposed rule would harmonize the AECA's regulatory definition of “machinegun” with the definitions in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479, as those definitions would be amended by this rule.

    The proposed rule would replace prior classifications of bump-stock-type devices, including devices that ATF previously determined were not machineguns. The rule thus would supplant any prior letter rulings with which it is inconsistent so that any bump-stock-type device described above qualifies as a machinegun. Accordingly, manufacturers, current owners, and persons wishing to purchase such devices would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the GCA and NFA.

    The Department has determined that there would not be a registration period for any device that would be classified as “machinegun” as a result of this rulemaking. The NFA provides that only the manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm may register it.9 Accordingly, there is no means by which the possessor may register a firearm retroactively, including a firearm that has been reclassified. Further, 18 U.S.C. 922(o) prohibits the possession of machineguns that were not lawfully possessed before the effective date of the statute. Accordingly, if the final rule is consistent with this NPRM, current possessors of bump-stock-type devices will be obligated to dispose of those devices. A final rule will provide specific information about acceptable methods of disposal, as well as the timeframe under which disposal must be accomplished to avoid violating 18 U.S.C. 922(o).

    9 26 U.S.C. 5841(b); 27 CFR 479.101(b).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

    Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis below.

    This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is intended to interpret the definition of “machinegun” within the GCA and NFA such that it includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

    Need for Federal Regulatory Action

    Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One of the reasons is to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in statutes. Here, this rulemaking aims to apply Congress's policy decision to prohibit machineguns. Another reason underpinning regulatory action is the failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the byproduct of a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the transaction. This proposed rule is addressing a negative externality. The negative externality of the commercial sale of bump-stock-type devices is that they could be used for criminal purposes. This poses a public safety issue that the Department is trying to address.

    Executive Summary

    Table 1 provides a summary of the affected population and anticipated costs and benefits to promulgating this rule.

    Table 1—Summary of Affected Population, Costs, and Benefits Category Affected populations, costs, and benefits Applicability • Manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices. • Retail sellers of bump-stock-type devices.
  • • Gun owners who own bump-stock-type devices or would have purchased them in the future.
  • Affected Population • 2 manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices. • 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-type devices.
  • • Owners and future consumers of bump-stock-type devices.
  • Total Quantified Costs to Industry, Public, and Government (7% Discount Rate) $217.0 million present value over 10 years, $36.3 million annualized. Unquantified Costs • Costs of destruction. • Costs of advertising to inform owners of the need to dispose of their bump-stock-type devices.
  • • Lost consumer surplus to users of bump-stock-type devices.
  • Unquantified Benefits • Prevents criminal usage of bump-stock-type devices. • Could reduce casualties in an incident that would have involved a weapon fitted with a bump-stock-type device, as well as assist first responders when responding to incidents.
    Affected Population

    The populations affected by this rule are manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices, retailers who sell them either in brick-and-mortar stores or online, and individuals who have purchased or would have wanted to purchase bump-stock-type devices. The number of entities and individuals selling or purchasing bump-stock-type devices are as follows:

    • 2 manufacturers • 2,281 retailers • An uncertain number of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices or would have purchased them in the future

    Because many bump-stock-type devices—including those ATF addressed in classification letters between 2008 and 2017—have not been subject to regulation under the GCA, ATF does not keep track of manufacturers or retailers of bump-stock-type devices, nor does ATF keep track or maintain a database of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices. Therefore, the affected population of manufacturers and retailers is an estimate and based on publicly available information and, with respect to retailers who are also Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), is also based on ATF's records in the Federal Firearms Licensing System.

    ATF estimates that since 2010, as many as six domestic bump-stock-type device manufacturers have been in the marketplace, but due to patent infringement litigation, only two remain in the market. For the estimate of the number of retailers, ATF filtered all FFLs for a list of potential sellers. While there are approximately 80,000 FFLs currently licensed, only certain types sell firearms to the public. ATF first removed FFLs that do not sell firearms to the public. Next, since not all FFLs sell firearm accessories, ATF needed to estimate the number that do sell accessories. ATF assumed that FFLs that are likely to sell bump-stock-type devices would have online websites. ATF requests public comment on the reasonableness of the assumption that retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to be businesses with an online presence. ATF ran a query on the FFL database and found that of those that sell firearms to the public, 2,270 have websites. Because sellers of firearm accessories do not necessarily sell firearms, ATF also performed an online search and found an additional 11 retailers who sell firearm accessories, but not firearms. Adding these two totals together, ATF estimates that there are 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-type devices.

    Because there are no records of individuals who have purchased firearm accessories, ATF does not have an estimated number of individuals who would be affected by this proposed rule. Although ATF lacks data on the number of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices, ATF has some information from one manufacturer and four retailers on the volume of sales of such devices. Based on these reported amounts, ATF estimates that the number of bump-stock-type devices that were purchased during the 8-year period beginning in 2010 ranges from 35,000 per year as a low estimate to 75,000 per year as the high and primary estimate. ATF used a public commenter's 400,000 total estimate as a third estimate. For further information on the methodology of these estimates, please review the analysis regarding “Costs” below.

    Costs

    There are three primary sources of costs from this rule. First, for owners of bump-stock-type devices, there will be a lost value from no longer being able to possess or use the devices. Second, there will be a lost value to manufacturers who would have manufactured and sold the devices in the future and to gun owners who would have purchased them. Finally, there is a disposal cost associated with the need to destroy the devices or render them inactive.

    Cost to the Public for Loss of Property

    As reported by public comments, individuals purchase bump-stock-type devices so that they can simulate automatic firing on a semiautomatic firearm. Commenters noted a variety of purposes for which bump-stock-type devices have been advertised and used, including for recreation and fun, assisting persons with mobility issues in firing quickly, self-defense, killing invasive pig species, and target practice (although, as some commenters observed, bump-stock-type devices impede firing accuracy). If the proposed rule became effective, bump-stock-type devices would be considered machineguns under the NFA and could not be lawfully possessed because the GCA prohibits persons from possessing a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed before the effective date of the statute. Bump-stock-type devices currently possessed by individuals would have to be destroyed or turned in upon implementation of the regulation.

    The lost value from no longer being able to use or purchase bump-stock-type devices will depend on the volume of sales in the market and the value that consumers place on the devices. ATF has limited information about the market for bump-stock-type devices. One commenter estimated that more than 400,000 bump-stock-type devices may have been sold. Based on publicly available information, ATF estimates that in the first two years that bump-stock-type devices were in the market, approximately 35,000 were sold per year.10 However, after 2011, other manufacturers entered the market and there is no available information regarding the total number of bump-stock-type devices manufactured. ATF is using publicly available information on manufacturing and combining it with the information on retail sales to estimate a range of the number of bump-stock-type devices in the marketplace.

    10 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), http://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.

    ATF first developed an estimate of the number of bump-stock-type devices in the marketplace, based on information on retail sales provided in response to the ANPRM. One retailer stated that it sold an average of 4,000 to 5,000 bump-stock-type devices per year.11 Public comments indicated that one retailer sold 3,800 bump-stock-type devices annually, one sold 60 per year, and one sold approximately 5-10 per year.12 For the purposes of this regulatory analysis (RA), ATF assumes that a large retailer would have sold 4,400, a midrange retailer would have sold 60, and a small retailer would have sold 8.13 For the purposes of this analysis, ATF assumes the number of retailers by size are as follows:

    11 Based on an internal survey of large retailers.

    12Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0001-27509, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-27509 (last visited on Mar. 6, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0001-0433, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0433 (last visited on Mar. 6, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0001-0128, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0128 (last visited on Mar. 6, 2018).

    13 For a large retailer the average sales were 4,400 = (3,800 + 5,000)/2. For a small retailer, the average sales were 8 = (5 + 10)/2.

    • 4 large * 4,400 annual sales • 755 midrange * 60 annual sales • 1,511 small * 8 annual sales

    The number of large retailers is a known number. As stated in the Affected Population section above, based on ATF's internal database and online research, the remaining number of retailers is 2,270. For the purposes of this RA, ATF assumed that one-third of the remaining retailer population are midrange retailers, and the remaining 1,511 are small retailers. Using these assumed numbers of retailers and annual sales by size of retailer, ATF estimated annual sales of about 75,000 [(4 * 4,400) + (755 * 60) + (1,511 * 8)].

    ATF next developed an estimate of the number of bump-stock-type devices in the United States based on information about the numbers of bump-stock-type devices manufactured. Based on publicly available information, ATF estimates that approximately 35,000 bump-stock-type devices were sold in 2010.14 Only in 2012 did other manufacturers enter the marketplace. For the purposes of this RA, ATF assumes that in the first two years of production, the one manufacturer produced the same 35,000 in years 2010 and 2011. ATF has two sets of production estimates. Because no information is otherwise known about the production of bump-stock-type devices, ATF assumes that the low estimate of annual bump-stock-type device production is a constant 35,000, based on the one data point. As stated earlier, a public commenter provided an estimate of 400,000 bump-stock-type devices currently in circulation. To account for how these were purchased over the last 8 years, ATF also assumed the same 35,000 production in the first 2 years, but spread out the remaining 330,000 over the remaining 6 years, or about 55,000 per year. However, incorporating the provided retail sales information, ATF developed a third, higher estimate reflecting that when the other manufacturers entered the market, the number of bump-stock-type devices sold on the market annually could have been 75,000.

    14 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), http://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.

    The high estimate is ATF's primary estimate because ATF knows that there was an increase in production starting in 2012. In 2012, there were other manufacturers who entered the market, and the first manufacturer increased production at some point thereafter. Furthermore, the primary estimate includes information provided by retailers as a more comprehensive outlook on the overall production numbers. For the purposes of this analysis, ATF assumes that both the increase in production and the market entry of other manufacturers all occurred in 2012. Table 2 provides the breakdown of production for the low estimate, public comment estimate, and primary estimate.

    Table 2—Number of Bump-Stock-Type Devices Produced, Based on Manufacturer and Retail Sales Year Low
  • estimate
  • Public
  • comment
  • estimate
  • Primary
  • estimate
  • 2010 35,000 35,000 35,000 2011 35,000 35,000 35,000 2012 35,000 55,000 75,000 2013 35,000 55,000 75,000 2014 35,000 55,000 75,000 2015 35,000 55,000 75,000 2016 35,000 55,000 75,000 2017 35,000 55,000 75,000 Total 280,000 400,000 520,000

    In other words, the number of bump-stock-type devices held by the public could range from about 280,000 to about 520,000.

    ATF does not know the production cost of bump-stock-type devices, but for the purposes of this RA, ATF uses the retail sales amounts as a proxy for the total value of these devices. For devices that have already been sold, there are two countervailing effects that affect the value of the devices. There may have been some depreciation of the devices since they were originally purchased, resulting in a value somewhat reduced from the retail price. On the other hand, some consumers would have been willing to pay more than the retail price for a bump-stock-type device, and for these individuals the devices would have a higher valuation than the retail price. Both of these effects are difficult to estimate, and here ATF assumes that the retail sales price is a reasonable proxy for the value of the devices.

    The primary manufacturer of bump-stock-type devices sells them at a price of $179.95 to $425.95.15 For the purposes of this RA, ATF estimates that the average sale price for these bump-stock-type devices was $301.00 during the first two years they were sold. In 2012, at least one other manufacturer entered the market and started selling their devices at the rate of $99.99, making the overall prices for these devices lower.16 For the purposes of this RA, ATF assumes that the average sale price for bump-stock-type devices from 2012 to 2017 was $200.00. Based on these costs, multiplied by the number of bump-stock-type devices in the market, Table 3 provides the sales value that the public has spent on these devices over the course of the last eight years.

    15 Slide Fire AR-15 Bump Fire Stocks (archived page on Jan. 28, 2017), https://web.archive.org/web/20170128085532/http://www.slidefire.com/products/ar-platform (last visited Mar. 6, 2018).

    16 Bump Fire Systems (archived page on Feb. 21, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20150221050223/http://bumpfiresystems.com/ (last visited Mar. 6, 2018).

    Table 3—Amount Spent on Bump-Stock-Type Devices (Undiscounted) Year Low estimate Public
  • comment
  • estimate
  • Primary
  • estimate
  • 2011 $10,533,250 $10,533,250 $10,533,250 2012 10,533,250 10,533,250 10,533,250 2013 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250 2014 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250 2015 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250 2016 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250 2017 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250 Total 56,148,750 76,195,750 96,242,750

    ATF estimates that the total, undiscounted amount spent on bump-stock-type devices was $96.2 million. While the retail prices of these bump-stock-type devices remained constant over the eight years of sales, these purchases occurred over time; therefore, ATF presents the discounted value at 3% and 7% in Table 4 to account for the present value of these purchases.

    Table 4—The Amount Spent Purchasing Bump-Stock-Type Devices, Discounted at 3% and 7% Year Undiscounted 3% 7% 2011 $10,533,250 $12,210,924 $14,773,428 2012 10,533,250 11,855,266 13,806,942 2013 15,035,250 16,429,424 18,418,828 2014 15,035,250 15,950,897 17,213,858 2015 15,035,250 15,486,308 16,087,718 2016 15,035,250 15,035,250 15,035,250 2017 15,035,250 14,597,330 14,051,636 Total 96,242,750 101,565,397 109,387,659 Annualized Cost 14,468,640 18,318,906

    Because these purchases occurred in the past, ATF's discount years start at -5 and increase to 0 to account for the Executive Order 13771 standard that costs be presented in 2016 dollars. With these assumptions, ATF estimates that the annualized, discounted amount spent on bump-stock-type devices was $14.5 million and $18.3 million at 3% and 7%, respectively.

    Based on the same discounting formula, ATF estimates that the total undiscounted cost for the low estimate would be $56.1 million, and the total discounted values would be $60.2 million and $66.3 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. The annualized values for the low estimates of total number of bump-stock-type devices sold are $8.6 million and $11.1 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. For the 400,000-unit estimate provided by the public commenter, the total undiscounted amount would be $76.2 million, and the total discounted values would be $80.9 million and $87.8 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. The annualized values for the 400,000-unit sales estimate are $11.5 million and $14.7 million at 3% and 7%, respectively.

    Forgone Future Production and Sales

    ATF has estimated the lost production and lost sales that would occur in the 10 years after the implementation of this proposed rule, should this proposed rule take effect. In order to do this, ATF needed to predict the number of devices that would be sold in the future in the absence of a rule. Such a prediction should take account of recent expected changes in the demand for and supply of bump-stock-type devices. For example, based on a survey, half of the known, large former retailers of bump-stock-type devices no longer sell bump-stock-type devices as a result of the Las Vegas shooting, nor do they intend to sell them in the future. Moreover, while ATF has estimated the number of bump-stock-type devices manufactured since 2010, ATF is without sufficient information to estimate the number of individuals who were interested in acquiring bump-stock-type devices prior to the Las Vegas shooting but would no longer want them due to the shooting.

    Another recent change affecting individuals' future purchases of bump-stock-type devices is that certain States have already banned such devices. These States are California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. The effect of States' bans on individuals' future purchases of bump-stock-type devices should not be attributed to this proposed rule since these reductions in purchases would happen with or without the rule. However, ATF was unable to quantify the impact of States' bans and thus was unable to account for the future effects of these bans in the estimate of the effects of the proposed rule.

    Based on previously mentioned comments from large retailers, ATF expects that, in the absence of this rule, some retailers would not sell bump-stock-type devices in the future. In order to estimate the expected future reduction in demand for bump-stock-type devices as a result of the Las Vegas shooting, ATF assumes that the reduction of sales by large retailers that has already occurred would be a reasonable estimate of the future reduction of sales overall that would occur in the absence of the rule. ATF estimates that there are four large retailers of bump-stock-type devices, of which two have stated that they would no longer sell bump-stock-type devices regardless of this proposed rule. For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, it is estimated that each of the two large retailers sell 4,400 bump-stock-type devices annually. Removing the effects of these two large retailers from the future market reduces ATF's primary estimate of 74,988 in past annual production to an estimate of 66,484 (75,284 − 8,800) in annual sales that would occur in the future in the absence of a rule. Table 5 provides the estimated breakdown of lost production and sales forgone should this rule become final.

    Table 5—Forgone Production and Sales of Future Bump-Stock-Type Devices Year Number of bump-stock-type devices Undiscounted 3% 7% 2018 66,484 $20,008,360 $19,425,592.04 $18,699,401.68 2019 66,484 20,008,360 18,859,798.10 17,476,076.34 2020 66,484 20,008,360 18,310,483.59 16,332,781.62 2021 66,484 20,008,360 17,777,168.53 15,264,281.89 2022 66,484 20,008,360 17,259,386.92 14,265,684.01 2023 66,484 20,008,360 16,756,686.33 13,332,414.96 2024 66,484 20,008,360 16,268,627.51 12,460,200.90 2025 66,484 20,008,360 15,794,783.99 11,645,047.57 2026 66,484 20,008,360 15,334,741.74 10,883,222.03 2027 66,484 20,008,360 14,888,098.77 10,171,235.54 Total 200,083,598 170,675,367.53 140,530,346.56 Annualized Cost 24,313,796.52 23,534,302.70

    Based on these estimates, ATF estimates that the undiscounted value of forgone future sales over 10 years would be $200.1 million, undiscounted, or $24.3 million and $23.5 million, annualized and discounted at 3% and 7%.

    Disposal

    This proposed rule would require the destruction of existing bump-stock-type devices. The cost of disposal would have several components. For individuals who own bump-stock-type devices, there would be a cost for the time and effort to destroy the devices or ensure that they are destroyed by another party. For retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, there would be a cost of the time and effort to destroy or ensure the destruction of any devices held in inventory. Based on the response from public comments, it is not clear if there would also be a cost from the lost value of that inventory.

    Individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices prior to the implementation of this rule would have the option of destroying the devices themselves, turning the devices in to the nearest ATF office for destruction by ATF or, subject to compliance with U.S. Mail regulations and the policies of commercial shipment services, sending the devices to ATF through the U.S. Mail or other commercial delivery service. Options for destroying the devices may include melting, crushing, or shredding in a manner that renders the device incapable of ready restoration. Since the majority of bump-stock-type devices are made of plastic material, individuals wishing to destroy the devices themselves could simply use a hammer to break apart the devices and throw the pieces away. Other destruction options that ATF has historically accepted include torch cutting or sawing the device in a manner that removes at least 1/4 inch of material for each cut and completely severs design features critical to the functionality of the device as a bump-stock-type device.

    If a possessor chooses to turn in the device to the local ATF office, the cost to the public to destroy the device would be the cost to drive to the nearest ATF office, the cost of sending through the U.S. Mail, or the cost of sending via private shipper. For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, ATF assumes that most individuals disposing of their existing bump-stock-type devices would destroy these devices themselves rather than turn them into the nearest ATF office through personal delivery, mail, or private shipper.

    Should this rule take effect, public comments suggest that unsellable inventory could be worth approximately $35,000 per large retailer. One public commenter, assumed to be a large retailer, stated that its gross sales were $140,000. Another public commenter assumed to be a midrange retailer had gross sales of $18,000. No known sales were reported for a small retailer. Based on the proportion of sales among the large, midrange, and small retailers, ATF estimates that the amount in existing inventory for a midrange retailer would be $4,500 and, for a small retailer, $74.17

    17 Midrange: $4,500 = ($18,000/$140,000) * $35,000. Small: $74 = (8/3,800) * $35,000.

    The retailer, assumed to be large, also commented that the opportunity cost of time needed to destroy existing inventory would be approximately $700. ATF's subject matter experts estimate that a retailer could use a maintenance crew to destroy existing inventory. To determine the hourly time needed to destroy existing inventory, ATF used the $700 reported amount, divided by the loaded wage rate of a building cleaning worker. ATF subject matter experts also suggest that existing packers would be used for a midrange retailer and the minimum wage would be used for a small retailer. The loaded rate of 1.43 was used to account for fringe benefits.18 Table 6 provides the wages used for this analysis.

    18 BLS Series ID CMU2010000000000D, CMU2010000000000P (Private Industry Compensation = $32.35)/(Private Industry Wages and Salaries = $22.55) = 1.43. BLS average 2016. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[cm]&s=popularity:D.

    Table 6—Wage Series to Destroy Existing Inventory Wage series Series code Unloaded wage rate Loaded
  • wage rate
  • Source
    Individual $13.60 $13.60 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf. Minimum Wage Rate Min Wage 7.25 10.40 https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm. Packers, Packagers, and Handlers 53-7064 11.74 16.84 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes537064.htm. Retail Salespersons 41-2031 13.07 18.75 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes412031.htm. Building Cleaning Workers, All Other 37-2019 14.88 21.34 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes372019.htm.

    Based on the estimated wages and reported opportunity cost of time, ATF estimates that it would take a large retailer 32.8 hours, a midrange retailer 0.45 hours, and a small retailer 0.25 hours to destroy existing inventory. Table 7 provides the per-retailer estimated opportunity cost of time.

    Table 7—Opportunity Cost of Time to Destroy Existing Inventory Population Incremental cost Hourly burden Opportunity cost of time Individual $13.60 0.25 $3.40 Retailer (Large) 21.34 32.8 699.95 Retailer (Midrange) 16.84 0.45 7.58 Retailer (Small) 19.51 0.25 4.88

    As stated earlier, ATF estimates that there are 519,927 bump-stock-type devices already purchased by the public. Based on the opportunity cost of time per bump-stock-type device, and the estimated opportunity cost of time per retailer, ATF provides the cost to destroy all existing bump-stock-type devices in Table 8.

    Table 8—Opportunity Cost of Time to Destroy Existing Devices by Individual and Retailer Size Individual $1,768,000 Retailer (Large) 2,800 Retailer (Midrange) 5,752 Retailer (Small) 3,947 Total Disposal Cost 1,780,498

    ATF estimates that it would cost a total of $1.8 million to destroy all existing bump-stock-type devices.

    We treat all costs of disposal of existing devices owned by individuals or held in inventory by retailers or manufacturers as if they occur in 2018. Therefore, the costs of the rule in 2018 would include the total undiscounted value of existing stock of bump-stock-type devices in Table 4 ($96.2 million), the year 2018 loss of future production from Table 5 ($20.0 million), and the total cost of disposal from Table 8 ($1.8 million). Overall, ATF estimates that the total cost of this proposed rule would be $297.2 million over a 10-year period of future analysis. This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time. Table 9 provides the 10-year cost of this proposed rule.

    Table 9—10-Year Cost of Proposed Rule Year Undiscounted 3% 7% 2018 $118,031,608 $111,256,111 $103,093,378 2019 20,008,360 18,310,484 16,332,782 2020 20,008,360 17,777,169 15,264,282 2021 20,008,360 17,259,387 14,265,684 2022 20,008,360 16,756,686 13,332,415 2023 20,008,360 16,268,628 12,460,201 2024 20,008,360 15,794,784 11,645,048 2025 20,008,360 15,334,742 10,883,222 2026 20,008,360 14,888,099 10,171,236 2027 20,008,360 14,454,465 9,505,828 Total 298,106,846 258,100,553 216,954,074 Annualized Cost 36,768,073 36,332,813

    As stated in the paragraph above, the total undiscounted cost is $297.2 million, and the discounted costs would be $36.8 million and $36.3 million annualized at 3% and 7% respectively.

    Government Costs

    Government costs are estimated as de minimis because collection of the bump-stock-type devices by ATF would be an ancillary duty of existing ATF Special Agents.

    Cost Savings

    ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this proposed rule.

    Benefits

    As reported by public comments, this proposed rule would affect the criminal use of bump-stock-type devices in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting incident.

    The purpose of this rule is to amend ATF regulations to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are “machineguns” as defined by the NFA and GCA. Banning bump-stock-type devices could reduce casualties in an incident involving a weapon fitted with a bump-stock-type device, as well as assist first responders when responding to incidents, because it prevents shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.

    Alternatives

    Alternative 1—No change alternative. This alternative would leave the regulations in place as they currently stand. Since there would be no changes to regulations, there would be no cost, savings, or benefits to this alternative.

    Alternative 2—Patronizing a shooting range. Individuals wishing to experience the shooting of a “full-auto” firearm could go to a shooting range that provides access to lawfully registered “pre-1986” machineguns to customers, where the firearm remains on the premises and under the control of the shooting range. ATF does not have the information to determine which, where, or how many gun ranges provide such a service and is therefore not able to quantify this alternative.

    Alternative 3—Opportunity alternatives. Based on public comments, individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly. To the extent that individuals are capable of doing so, this would be their alternative to using bump-stock-type devices.

    No other feasible alternatives were identified, and thus none were considered.

    B. Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    C. Executive Order 12988

    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Summary of Findings

    ATF performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the impacts on small businesses and other entities from the NPRM. Based on the information from this analysis, ATF found:

    • It is estimated that of the two remaining manufacturers, at least one manufacturer only produces bump-stock-type devices and therefore could completely go out of business;

    • There are 2,281 retailers, of which most are estimated to be small;

    • There are no relevant government entities.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” Public Law 96-354, 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).

    Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider if this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have such an impact. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    Under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(b)-(c)), the regulatory flexibility analysis must provide and/or address:

    • A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

    • A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;

    • A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

    • A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;

    • An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule; and

    • Descriptions of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

    The RFA covers a wide range of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). ATF determined that the rule affects a variety of large and small businesses (see the “Description of the Potential Number of Small Entities” section below). Based on the requirements above, ATF prepared the following regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact on small entities from the rule.

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

    Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One of the reasons is to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in statutes. Here, this rulemaking aims to apply Congress's policy decision to prohibit machineguns. Another reason underpinning regulatory action is the failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the byproduct of a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the transaction. This proposed rule is addressing a negative externality. The negative externality of the commercial sale of bump-stock-type devices is that it could be used for criminal purposes. This poses a public safety issue, which the Department is trying to address.

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

    The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as amended, and the NFA, as amended.

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

    This rule would affect primarily manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices, FFLs that sell bump-stock-type devices, and other small retailers of firearm accessories that have invested in the bump-stock-type device industry. Based on publicly available information, there are two manufacturers affected. Of the known retailers, the large retailers do not intend to continue selling bump-stock-type devices. There may be some small retailers that would intend to continue selling these devices should this proposed rule not go into effect and would thus be affected by this proposed rule. Based on the information from this analysis, ATF found:

    • There are 2,270 retailers who are likely to be small entities;

    • There are no government jurisdictions affected by this proposed rule; and

    • There are no nonprofits found in the data.

    A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record

    There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements for this proposed rule. The only relevant compliance requirement consists of disposing of all existing inventory of bump-stock-type devices for small entities that carry them. There would not be any professional skills necessary to record or report in this proposed rulemaking.

    An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule does not duplicate or conflict with other Federal rules.

    Descriptions of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities

    Alternatives were considered in this proposed rule. Alternatives include making no regulatory changes. ATF rejected this alternative because it does not address the public safety concerns raised by bump-stock-type devices, and would not be consistent with ATF's interpretation of the statutory term “machinegun.” There were no other regulatory alternatives to this proposal that ATF has been able to identify that would accomplish the intent of this proposed rule.

    E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966

    This rule is a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule is likely to be considered major as it is economically significant and is projected to have an effect of over $100 million on the economy in at least the first year of the rule.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48.

    G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

    VII. Public Participation A. Comments Sought

    ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the scope of this proposed rule and the definition of “machinegun.” ATF also requests comments on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits. Further, ATF requests public comment on the reasonableness of the assumption that retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to be businesses with an online presence. In addition, ATF specifically requests comments regarding how ATF should address bump-stock-type devices that private parties currently possess, and the appropriate means of implementing a final rule.

    All comments must reference the docket number ATF 2017R-22, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

    ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the closing date, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.

    B. Confidentiality

    ATF will make all comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, available for public viewing at ATF and on the internet as part of the eRulemaking initiative, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Commenters who do not want their name or other personal identifying information posted on the internet should submit comments by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet containing their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet and comment must reference this docket number (ATF 2017R-22). Information contained in the cover sheet will not appear on the internet. ATF will not redact personal identifying information that appears within the comment, and it will appear on the internet.

    The commenter should not include material that he or she considers inappropriate for disclosure to the public. Any person submitting a comment shall specifically designate that portion (if any) of the comment that contains material that is confidential under law (e.g., trade secrets, processes). The commenter shall set forth any portion of a comment that is confidential under law on pages separate from the balance of the comment with each page prominently marked “confidential” at the top of the page.

    Confidential information will be included in the rulemaking record but will not be disclosed to the public. Any comments containing material that is not confidential under law may be disclosed to the public. In any event, the name of the person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.

    C. Submitting Comments

    Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF strongly recommends that you submit your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal. Visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17 inches), include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length.

    Facsimile: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648-9741. Faxed comments must:

    (1) Be legible and appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17 inches);

    (2) Be on 81/2″ x 11″ paper;

    (3) Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address; and

    (4) Be no more than five pages long.

    D. Request for Hearing

    Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director of ATF within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.

    Disclosure

    Copies of this notice and the comments received will be available at http://www.regulations.gov (search for Docket No. 2017R-22) and for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-8740.

    List of Subjects 27 CFR Part 447

    Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Chemicals, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Seizures and forfeitures.

    27 CFR Part 478

    Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.

    27 CFR Part 479

    Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise taxes, Exports, Imports, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.

    Authority and Issuance

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts 447, 478, and 479 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 447—IMPORTATION OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF WAR 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 447 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2778, E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013).

    2. In § 447.11, amend the definition of “Machinegun” to read as follows:
    § 447.11 Meaning of terms.

    Machinegun. A “machinegun”, “machine pistol”, “submachinegun”, or “automatic rifle” is a weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machinegun” includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

    PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION 3. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921-931.

    4. In § 478.11, amend the definition of “Machine gun” by adding two sentences at the end of the definition to read as follows:
    § 478.11 Meaning of terms.

    Machine gun.

    * * * For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machine gun” includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

    PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS 5. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 479 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805.

    6. In § 479.11, amend the definition of “Machine gun” by adding two sentences at the end of the definition to read as follows:
    § 479.11 Meaning of terms.

    Machine gun.

    * * * For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machine gun” includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06292 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0164; FRL-9976-14—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR PM2.5 Precursors AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), revisions to Ohio's state implementation plan (SIP) as requested by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) on March 10, 2017, and supplemented on July 18, 2017. The revisions to Ohio's SIP implement certain EPA regulations for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) for nonattainment areas by establishing definitions related to PM2.5 and defining PM2.5 precursors. The revisions also incorporate the findings of a comprehensive precursor demonstration performed by OEPA, which determined that volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) are an insignificant source of PM2.5 for the purpose of new source review in nonattainment areas in Ohio.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0164 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:

    Charmagne Ackerman, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0448, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background II. Review of State Submittals III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On March 10, 2017, OEPA submitted to EPA revisions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) chapter 3745-31-01. The revisions were made to implement the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements.” Subsequently, on July 18, 2017, OEPA submitted to EPA a letter clarifying the March 10, 2017 submittal. OEPA clarified that limited portions of OAC 3745-31-01 should be included as a SIP revision. The revisions to OAC 3745-31-01, specifically, subparagraph (LLL) (6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL) (2) (ee) will make the rule consistent with 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 52.21.

    II. Review of State Submittals

    On August 24, 2016, EPA published the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule)(81 FR 58009) as a final rule in the Federal Register. These 2016 regulations provide details on meeting the statutory SIP requirements that apply to areas designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As part of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, EPA has interpreted the requirements of the CAA to allow the state to provide a “precursor demonstration” to the EPA that supports the determination that one or more PM2.5 precursor need not be subject to control and planning requirements in a given nonattainment area. EPA has determined that sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, VOC, and NH3 are factual and scientific precursors to PM, and thus the attainment plan requirements of subpart 4 initially apply equally to emissions of direct PM2.5 and all of its identified precursors. CAA section 189(e) explicitly requires the control of major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, unless there is a demonstration to the satisfaction of the Administrator that such major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM levels that exceed the standards in the area. The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule became effective on October 16, 2016.

    OEPA provided a modeling analysis for both VOC and NH3 intended to show that increases in emissions of these precursors that may result from new or modified sources would not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 concentrations in the area. This demonstration justifies the state's determination that major stationary sources of these precursors do not need to be regulated under the NNSR program for the area. For NNSR permitting purposes, CAA section 189(e), as interpreted by the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, provides an option for the state to provide a precursor demonstration intended to show that increases in emissions from potential new and existing major stationary sources of a particular precursor would not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in a particular nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3).

    In particular, EPA's regulations provide that a state choosing to submit an NNSR precursor demonstration should evaluate the sensitivity of PM2.5 levels in the nonattainment area to an increase in emissions of the precursor. If the state demonstrates that the estimated air quality changes determined through such an analysis are not significant, based on the facts and circumstances of the area, the state may use this information to identify new major stationary sources and major modifications of a precursor that will not be considered to contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the nonattainment area under CAA section 189(e). Id. 51.1006(a)(3)(i). If EPA approves the state's NNSR precursor demonstration for a nonattainment area, major sources of the relevant precursor can be exempted from the NNSR major source permitting requirements for PM2.5 with respect to that precursor. Id. 51.1006(a)(3)(ii).

    For NNSR permitting purposes, OEPA conducted sensitivity analyses to examine potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the area resulting from a given set of precursor emission increases from one or more new or modified stationary sources. On October 14, 2016, OEPA submitted its non-significance finding, including the precursor demonstration, as part of OEPA's attainment demonstration for the 2012 PM2.5 annual standard. The attainment demonstration for the PM2.5 annual standard will be addressed in a separate action.

    OEPA and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) used the 2011 and 2021 comprehensive modeling inventories and platforms for this analysis. OEPA and LADCO initially ran a baseline model to predict the PM2.5 concentrations in Cleveland in 2021, and then modeled any potential increases of precursors for the same year to determine the impact of the growth of precursors to the areas concentrations. To help determine a theoretical growth scenario as a result of major source expansion (new or modified), OEPA first prepared inventories for VOC and NH3 for 2008 to 2014 for the entire State from Ohio's annual emissions reporting program. OEPA used inventories for the entire State in order to determine what types of major sources/source categories are likely to expand (new or modified) within the Cleveland area and at what magnitude (tons per year) those expansions are likely to occur.

    Consistent with EPA's regulation and draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO have performed sensitivity analyses of potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area (including unmonitored areas) resulting from a given set of hypothetical NH3 or VOC precursor emission increases from modified major stationary sources of the respective precursors in the nonattainment area.

    For the NH3 analysis, OEPA assumed emissions increases at three existing locations of NH3 in the area, as these would be the most likely future areas of growth in the Cleveland area. EPA believes that the use of the historical inventories to predict growth is reflective of the future potential increases specific to the Cleveland area given the current types of facilities and their respective locations, the urban density and ability to expand or build, as well as the types of state regulation or other federal requirements (such as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) on facility types and controls required for other pollutants. EPA believes that this is an acceptable approach to estimating potential future growth.

    In addition to the modeled emissions increases based on historical growth at sources, LADCO and OEPA performed an additional NH3 modeling analysis (submitted July 18, 2017) based on a 100 tons per year (TPY) emissions increase (to represent major sources) in each modeled grid cell in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that this is a sufficiently conservative analysis that exceeds the level of actual potential NH3 emissions growth likely to occur in the area. Thus, this analysis serves as a reasonable evaluation of the sensitivity of PM2.5 concentrations to a large emissions increase across the spatial area. Both of these approaches are consistent with suggested modeling in EPA's draft guidance.

    For the VOC analysis, OEPA added 1,486 TPY of VOC emissions at 3 existing source locations where VOC emissions increases potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a 75% increase in VOC emissions from existing stationary sources (Electric Generating Units (EGU) and non-EGU). Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents an 80% increase in stationary source emissions. For the NH3 analysis, OEPA added 325 TPY of NH3 emissions (scenario 1) to 3 existing source locations where NH3 emissions increases potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a 447% increase in NH3 emissions from existing stationary sources. Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents a 449% increase in NH3 from stationary sources. The additional NH3 analysis (scenario 2) had a total emissions increase of 1,700 TPY, which is over 500% higher growth than the historical NH3 growth (scenario 1).

    OEPA found that the addition of the NH3 emissions (approximately 350 TPY) into the model based on historical growth (scenario 1) would result in a peak impact of 0.08 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), and the addition of the above VOC emissions would result in a peak impact of 0.02 μg/m3. The modeled impacts are well below the recommended significance contribution threshold of 0.2 μg/m3; for VOC it is an order of magnitude difference, and for NH3 the maximum value is less than half the recommended significant contribution threshold level. The results of NH3 modeling for scenario 2 indicate that, even with a conservatively large NH3 increase, the maximum impact was 0.24 μg/m3, which is only slightly above the recommended contribution threshold of 0.2 ug/m3.

    While the increase is slightly above the recommended contribution threshold, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that NH3 emissions from major stationary sources (in the context of a NNSR precursor demonstration) do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area for the following reasons: Historical growth of NH3 sources in the area are significantly less than what was modeled for scenario 2; the only likely future increases of NH3 emissions from major sources in the area are from the increased use of NH3 for EGU NOX control (ammonia slip) and would likely occur at existing EGUs (as modeled in scenario 1); the area continues to trend downward in both monitored PM2.5 concentrations and PM2.5 (direct and precursor) emissions; and current preliminary monitoring data shows the area is attaining the standard. This small amount of additional ambient PM2.5 concentration, based on the modeling analysis, would therefore not interfere with the area's ability to attain the standard given that the current preliminary design value for 2015-2017 is 11.3 μg/m3, and the additional modeled increase of 0.24 μg/m3 would not impact the areas ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.

    Based on the results of the modeling demonstration and the additional factors described in this section, EPA is proposing to determine that emissions increases of either VOC or NH3 from new and modified major stationary sources would not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Cleveland nonattainment area. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve Ohio's submitted revisions to its PM2.5 SIP, and new or modified major sources of VOC and NH3 may be exempted from the state's NNSR program requirements for PM2.5 in the Cleveland PM2.5 nonattainment area.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision submittal. Ohio's SIP revisions comply with regulations EPA designed to address the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA finds that these revisions implement the NNSR rules by defining precursors for PM2.5, as required by EPA's regulations.

    EPA is proposing approval of revisions to OAC 3745-31-01, specifically subparagraph (LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)(2)(ee). EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with Federal requirements.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this 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 revisions to Ohio Administrative Code 3745-31-01 including subparagraph (LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)(2)(ee), effective on March 20, 2017 . EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 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 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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 20, 2018. Edward H. Chu, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06368 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0131; FRL-9975-89-OAR] Registration of Isobutanol as a Gasoline Additive: Opportunity for Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) is seeking public comment on any aspect of the use of isobutanol in gasoline. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC (“Butamax”), a manufacturer of isobutanol, has submitted an application pursuant to the regulations titled “Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives” for the registration of isobutanol as a gasoline additive at up to 16 volume percent. Butamax has submitted information that would likely satisfy the applicable registration requirements. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to register a fuel or fuel additive once all the applicable registration requirements have been met by the manufacturer. Due to the potential for the widespread introduction of isobutanol into commerce, we are taking steps to make the public aware of the likelihood of this registration. We are seeking public comment regarding any issues we should take into consideration for this registration and any supplemental actions we should consider under the Clean Air Act to further protect public health and welfare.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0131, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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 in general not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James W. Caldwell, Environmental Engineer, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 343-9303; Fax: (202) 343-2802; Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EPA is seeking public comment on any aspect of the use of isobutanol in gasoline. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC (“Butamax”), a manufacturer of isobutanol, has submitted an application pursuant to the regulations at 40 CFR part 79, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, for the registration of isobutanol, an alcohol, as a gasoline additive at up to 16 volume percent. Our review of the information Butamax has submitted leads us to believe that Butamax would likely satisfy the applicable registration requirements under 40 CFR part 79 (discussed in more detail below). Section 211(b) of the Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act, CAA or the Act) requires the EPA to register a fuel or fuel additive once all the applicable registration requirements have been met by the manufacturer. While the EPA does not have any specific concerns, due to the potential for the widespread introduction of isobutanol into commerce, we are taking steps to make the public aware of the likelihood of this registration and are seeking public comment regarding any issues we should take into consideration for this registration and/or any potential supplemental actions we should consider under the Clean Air Act to further protect public health and welfare.

    I. Statutory and Regulatory Background Section 211(a) and (b)—Fuels and Fuel Additives Designation and Registration

    Section 211(a) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to designate fuels and fuel additives (F/FAs) by regulations and, once designated, to register suchF/FAs prior to introduction into commerce. To date, the Administrator has designated on-highway motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline additives and on-highway motor vehicle diesel and diesel additives for registration. The EPA codified the registration requirements under Sections 211(b) and 211(e) of the Act at 40 CFR part 79. Registration requirements at 40 CFR part 79 include emissions speciation testing and a literature search of the associated emissions (Tier 1 testing) and animal testing of exposure to emissions for purposes of determining health effects (Tier 2 testing). Manufacturers with less than $50 million in total annual sales are considered small businesses, as specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 79.58(d). In certain cases, a small business is exempt from some or all of these testing requirements. For any potential registrant with $50 million or more in total annual sales, Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements must be met before registration.

    In addition, §§ 79.11(i) and 79.21(h) respectively require that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers demonstrate that their fuels and fuel additives are substantially similar to those used in emissions certification or have a waiver as part of 40 CFR part 79 registration.

    The Tier 1 registration regulations at 40 CFR 79.52 require a characterization of the emission products that are generated by evaporation and combustion of a gasoline with, if applicable, an oxygenated additive such as isobutanol. Combustion testing must be conducted with and without after-treatment of exhaust emissions. A literature search for information on the potential toxicological environmental, and other public welfare effects is required for emission products, except that it is not required for those emission products that are the same as the emission products for baseline gasoline (represented in testing by a gasoline with no oxygenates such as ethanol or isobutanol). This is because a test group organized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) has tested baseline gasoline and also conducted the literature search for its emission products. The results of this testing and literature search were reported in the 1997 API baseline gasoline Tier 1 literature review.

    The regulations at 40 CFR 79.53 specify the requisite health effects testing for compliance with Tier 2 as well as provisions for a manufacturer that opts to rely on existing health effects test data to satisfy these testing requirements. Additionally, the flexibility to modify Tier 2 requirements and to require Alternative Tier 2 testing can be found at 40 CFR 79.58(c). In 1998, EPA opted to modify the standard Tier 2 testing requirements for gasoline and various oxygenated gasoline blends and issued Alternative Tier 2 testing requirements to the API “Section 211(b) Research Group.” This was based on the EPA's determination that alternative test procedures would yield more useful data than standard Tier 2 testing. The primary difference between the testing for baseline gasoline and various oxygenated gasoline blends, under the Alternative Tier 2 and standard Tier 2 testing requirements, was that the Alternative Tier 2 testing focused on identifying and evaluating potential adverse health effects of evaporative emissions. It did not include examination of combustion emissions. At the time, the EPA explained the rationale for focusing on evaporative emissions and why the combustion emission studies would likely not produce meaningful information as being due to methodological complications caused by carbon monoxide (i.e., the carbon monoxide component of the combustion exhaust emissions may be lethal or otherwise compromise the health of the test animals). The EPA required specific testing for baseline gasoline and various oxygenated gasoline blends and these health studies have now been largely completed and approved.

    The regulations at 40 CFR 79.54 provide for additional testing under Tier 3 provisions if the Tier 1 and Alternative Tier 2 data or other data obtained by the Agency indicates that such testing is warranted. The EPA has yet to initiate a Tier 3 process for any fuel or fuel additive. If the EPA were to require Tier 3 testing, we would develop the testing protocol and requirements through a public process.

    CAA Section 211(f)—Substantially Similar and Waivers

    Section 211(f)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under Section 206 of the Act. The EPA last issued an interpretive rule on the phrase “substantially similar” at 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, this interpretive rule describes the types of unleaded gasoline that are considered “substantially similar” to the unleaded gasoline utilized in the EPA's emissions certification program by placing limits on a gasoline's chemical composition and its physical properties, including the amount of alcohols and ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Gasoline and diesel fuels that are found to be “substantially similar” to the EPA's certification fuels may be registered and introduced into commerce. The current “substantially similar” interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen content up to 2.7 percent oxygen by weight for certain ethers and alcohols, which equates to approximately 12 volume percent isobutanol.1 Gasoline-isobutanol blends containing up to 16 volume percent isobutanol would contain up to 3.7 percent oxygen by weight, which exceeds the allowable limit for oxygen content under the current “substantially similar” interpretive rule, and would require a waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the Act.

    1 See 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).

    Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application of any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the prohibitions of CAA section 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines that the applicant has established that such fuel or fuel additive, or a specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has been certified pursuant to Sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act. In other words, the Administrator may grant a waiver for a prohibited fuel or fuel additive if the applicant can demonstrate that the new fuel or fuel additive will not cause or contribute to engines, vehicles or equipment failing to meet their emissions standards over their useful lives. The statute requires that the Administrator shall take final action to grant or deny the application, after public notice and comment, within 270 days of receipt of the application.

    In addition, the regulations at §§ 79.11(i) and 79.21(h) require that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers must demonstrate that their fuels and fuel additives, respectively, are substantially similar or have a waiver as described in section 211(f) of the Act.

    CAA Section 211(c)—Rulemaking To Regulate Fuels

    Section 211(c)(1) of the Act allows the Administrator, by regulation, to “control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle (A) if, in the judgment of the Administrator, any fuel or fuel additive or any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air pollution or water pollution (including any degradation in the quality of groundwater) that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare, or (B) if emission products of such fuel or fuel additive will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or system which is in general use, or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it would be in general use were such regulation to be promulgated.” Prior to doing so, the EPA must consider scientific and medical evidence as well as the costs of any control and setting regulations under Section 202 of the Act. The EPA must also publish a finding that a control or prohibition will not result in the use of other substitute fuels or fuel additives that will also endanger public health or welfare.

    II. Registration of Isobutanol Isobutanol Background

    Isobutanol is a flammable colorless liquid that is used as a gasoline additive and as an industrial solvent. Isobutanol is composed of the chemical elements hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon and it can be made from petroleum or renewable biomass, such as corn, grasses, agricultural waste and other renewable sources. It can be used in internal combustion engines as an additive to gasoline and is registered under the 40 CFR part 79 as a gasoline additive for manufacturers that are exempt from the Tier 1 and Alternative Tier 2 testing. A blend level of 16 percent for a non-exempt manufacturer would require a new registration that would include meeting Tier 1 and Alternative Tier 2 health effects testing requirements and a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4). Biobutanol is the common name for isobutanol made from renewable sources.

    There has been an increased interest in the use of biobutanol as a direct result of the requirements for increased use of renewable fuel volumes, adopted in the Energy Information and Security Act of 2007. These provisions require an increase in the use of renewable fuels, with 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be used in the U.S. by 2022. Parties required to meet these standards are interested in cost effective and practical ways to satisfy the standards and meet the performance needs of the vehicles and engines. Biobutanol is one potentially attractive option because of its higher energy density, lower blending vapor pressure, and lower heat of vaporization in comparison to other alcohols such as ethanol.

    Current Isobutanol Registrations

    As previously discussed, regulations at 40 CFR 79.58(d) specify that a company with total annual sales of less than $50 million is a small business and is exempt in certain instances from applicable testing requirements. The EPA has registered isobutanol as a fuel additive for companies that qualified under this provision.

    Fuel and fuel additive manufacturers with total annual sales of $50 million or greater do not qualify as small businesses, are prohibited from registering the use of isobutanol produced by small businesses, and instead must comply with all applicable registration requirements, including health effects testing. Gasoline manufacturers typically have sales greater than $50 million per year and would need to register isobutanol as an additive to their gasoline if they wanted to use it. Therefore, a gasoline manufacturer cannot rely on the registration of a small additive manufacturer as a means of complying with the 40 CFR part 79 registration requirements. Additionally, because no gasoline manufacturer has completed the 40 CFR part 79 registration requirements, including required health effects testing for isobutanol, the agency has yet to grant a registration request of isobutanol as an additive to gasoline by a gasoline manufacturer. This has resulted in limiting isobutanol to blending at terminals by parties that are not gasoline manufacturers. See the definition of fuel manufacturer at 40 CFR 79.2(d). For this reason, among others, isobutanol has yet to be introduced into commerce in any significant volume.

    Butamax—Isobutanol Registration

    Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC (Butamax) has applied for registration of the use of up to 16 percent by volume isobutanol as a fuel additive in motor-vehicle gasoline.2 As discussed above, fuels and fuel additives to motor-vehicle gasoline are required to be registered by the EPA under 40 CFR part 79 prior to introduction into commerce. As previously described, there are two main requirements for the fuel or fuel additive manufacturer. First, the fuel or fuel additive must be substantially similar to fuel additives used in emissions certification, or, if not, have a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4) (42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4), 40 CFR 79.21(h)). A fuel containing a blend of gasoline and 16 percent isobutanol is not substantially similar to any EPA certification fuels so Butamax must operate via a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4) prior to registration. The EPA allows manufacturers to use previously granted waivers if they can satisfy the waiver's terms and conditions. Of relevance here is the OCTAMIX waiver, which the EPA granted on February 8, 1988,3 and has since modified the waiver on October 28, 1988,4 June 7, 2012,5 and June 14, 2012.6 The waiver allows a variety of alcohols in gasoline, including isobutanol, at up to 3.7 percent oxygen by weight. For a gasoline with a typical density, this equates to a maximum of 16 percent isobutanol by volume when no other oxygenates are present. Butamax has stated that it intends to produce the isobutanol fuel additive for use in accordance with the OCTAMIX waiver. Butamax must show that it will comply with all seven conditions in the OCTAMIX waiver to be able to rely on that waiver to satisfy the registration requirement at 40 CFR 79.21(h). The Agency has evaluated Butamax's March 25, 2011 submission regarding ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC and its application of the OCTAMIX Waiver for up to 16 volume percent isobutanol as a fuel additive if blended with gasoline and agrees with its evaluation that Butamax can meet all seven conditions specified in the OCTAMIX waiver.

    2 Ethanol is allowed in gasoline at up to 15 percent by volume for certain vehicles. Isobutanol at 16 percent by volume would not have a vehicle restriction.

    3 See 53 FR 3636 (February 8, 1988).

    4 See 53 FR 43768 (October 28, 1988).

    5 See 77 FR 33733 (June 7, 2012).

    6 See 77 FR 35677 (June 14, 2012).

    Second, a manufacturer must conduct Tier 1 and either Tier 2 or Alternative Tier 2 health-effects testing, unless the manufacturer is exempt under the small-business provisions specified at 40 CFR 79.58(d). Butamax does not qualify as a small business and is not exempt from these testing requirements. Additionally, the regulations at 40 CFR 79.53(b) allow a manufacturer to rely on existing health effects test data that would provide “reasonably comparable” information in lieu of conducting health effects testing “regarding the carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, teratogenicity, reproductive/fertility measures, and general toxicity effects of the emissions for a fuel or additive” for registration. The Agency's current review leads it to believe that Butamax will likely meet the requisite health effects testing requirements for isobutanol at 16 percent through its submittal of information on testing for the health effects end points identified under Alternative Tier 2 testing procedures for oxygenates.7 Similarly, the Agency also believes that Butamax will likely meet the other requirements for registration on EPA Form 3520-13, Fuel Additive Manufacturer Notification.

    7 Letter to Dr. Carol Henry, American Petroleum Institute, from Margo Oge, U.S. EPA, November 2, 1998.

    III. Recent Studies Regarding Isobutanol Blended Gasolines

    The OCTAMIX waiver evaluated a number of 1980s gasoline-fueled vehicles on the effects of gasoline-alcohol mixtures (applicable to isobutanol at up to 16 percent by volume) on those vehicles emissions controls. Since then, studies have been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of isobutanol on gasoline-fueled vehicles, engines, and fuel dispensing and storage equipment. Recent testing on the use of gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels illustrates that isobutanol-blended fuels generally do not significantly affect oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), or non-methane organic gas (NMOG) emissions. In a recent study, gasoline was splash blended with alcohols to produce four blends with a target value of 5.5 percent oxygen by weight including a gasoline-isobutanol blend of 21 volume percent isobutanol.8 The study found that the gasoline-isobutanol blended fuel did not significantly affect NOX, CO, or NMOG emissions.

    8 Ratcliff, M. A.; Luecke, J.; Williams, A.; Christensen, E.; Yanowitz, J.; Reek, A.; and McCormick, R. L.; Impact of higher alcohols blended in gasoline on light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (23), pp 13865-13872.

    In a test of isobutanol exposure impacts on fueling infrastructure materials, the observed swell for elastomers for exposures to 16 percent and 24 percent gasoline blends were similar to but slightly less than the oxygen equivalent ethanol fuels of E10 and E17. Samples of metals commonly found in fuel storage and dispensing systems were immersed in 16 percent and 24 percent isobutanol blends at60 °C for 28 days. In all cases, the annualized corrosion rates for isobutanol based on weight loss were negligible.9

    9 Kass, M.; Theiss, T.; Janke, C.; Pawel, S.; et al; Compatibility study for plastic, elastomeric, and metallic fueling infrastructure materials exposed to aggressive formulations of isobutanol-blended gasoline. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2014.

    Finally, in a 50-hour field emissions test of 175 horsepower and 215 horsepower boating engines, 16.1 volume percent isobutanol (blended to 93 octane) showed similar total HC+NOX emissions compared to a non-oxygenated certification gasoline.10 In that same test, CO emissions were reduced using isobutanol vs. indolene which was expected as isobutanol is a partially oxidized fuel. The enleanment reported for 16.1 percent isobutanol was in line with what is typical of E10 relative to indolene. The study noted that no operability issues were observed while the marine engines were operated on the gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels.11

    10 Until changed in the Tier 3 rulemaking (see 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014), certification gasoline did not contain ethanol, or any other oxygenates. However, the Tier 3 rulemaking now requires federal motor vehicle gasoline certification fuel to contain 10 volume percent ethanol.

    11 Wasil, J. R.; McKnight, J.; Kolb, R.; Munz, D.; Adey, J.; and Goodwin, B.; In-use performance testing of butanol-extended fuel in recreational marine engines and vessels. SAE [Tech Pap.] 2012.

    The Agency believes that based on the referenced studies on the potential effects of isobutanol on gasoline-fueled vehicles and engines and its engineering judgement, that modern motor vehicles and engines should continue to meet emissions standards and suffer no issues with driveability or operability on gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels up to 16 volume percent. However, even though the information cited above concerning regulated emissions, retail fuel dispensing and storage equipment materials, and marine engines suggests that isobutanol blended into gasoline should not pose any significant issues, the narrowness of the size and scope of these studies does not address all potential effects isobutanol may have on gasoline-fueled vehicles and engines. Therefore, the Agency seeks comment on whether there is available information on other areas that should be addressed for gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels up to 16 volume percent. The Agency could use information gleaned from this public comment process to determine whether further controls might be necessary (potentially via rulemaking under section 211(c) of the Act) to help ensure the smooth introduction of isobutanol into the gasoline market or to help determine whether the Agency should impose certain conditions on the registration of isobutanol as a gasoline additive through 40 CFR part 79.

    IV. Conclusion

    The EPA will register isobutanol for Butamax in accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 79 once applicable requirements are met. Butamax has submitted the required information, including: (1) The speciation of exhaust and evaporative emissions for gasoline with 16 percent isobutanol (Tier 1 testing), (2) a literature search for health information on the Tier 1 emissions found for that blend that were not found in the Tier 1 testing of gasoline without any oxygenate, and (3) the results of the Alternative Tier 2 health-effects testing for that blend (animal exposure to evaporative emissions). Butamax has also submitted information to demonstrate that it can comply with the requirements of the OCTAMIX waiver, which allows the blending of isobutanol into gasoline at up to 3.7 percent oxygen by weight, or 16 percent isobutanol by volume.

    The EPA seeks comments and any information and data on the use of isobutanol in gasoline, including, but not limited to: (1) The need for additional health-effects testing under the Tier 3 provisions in the regulations, and (2) the need for additional regulatory controls for 16 percent isobutanol in gasoline, beyond those for gasoline at 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, under the authority of CAA section 211(c).

    Dated: March 15, 2018. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06119 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15, 73, 74, and 76 [GN Docket No. 16-142; Report No. 3088] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for Reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Rick Chessen, on behalf of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association (“NCTA”) and Michael Nilsson, on behalf of American Television Alliance (ATVA).

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before April 13, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Evan Baranoff, Media Bureau, Policy Division, at: (202) 418-2120; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3088, released March 22, 2018. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5.U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

    Subject: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, Report and Order, FCC 17-158, published at 83 FR 4998, February 2, 2018, in GN Docket No. 16-142. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06372 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-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; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Request for information; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This request for information notice replaces the version published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12529), to make technical corrections to the prior version. 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. Additionally, PHMSA acknowledges that ongoing advances in aviation and maritime technology could also affect the transportation of hazardous materials and plans to address these issues in future notices, as necessary.

    DOT, including PHMSA, strongly encourages the safe development, testing, and integration of 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 recognizes the need to work with State and modal partners to 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.

    This request for information notice replaces the version published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12529),2 to make technical corrections to the prior version.

    2 See https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-22/pdf/2018-05785.pdf.

    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. PHMSA collaborates closely with other Federal agencies, operating administrations, and transportation modes, in addition to coordinating with State and local governments and authorities to ensure the safe movement of hazardous materials by highway and rail in or around local communities.

    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, further necessitating that hazardous materials standards and regulations be coordinated in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.

    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, 3 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.

    3 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. How might potential changes to the HMR for integration of surface automated vehicle technologies impact current requirements for human drivers or operators (i.e., training)?

    8. 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?

    9. How will the behavioral responses of road and railway users change with the integration of surface automated vehicle technologies? What will the reaction be to automated vehicles or rail cars with markings denoting the presence of hazardous materials?

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

    11. 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?

    12. 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?

    13. 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 23, 2018. Drue Pearce, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06290 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 171227999-8273-01] RIN 0648-BH48 Tuna Conventions Act; Advance Notice of Rulemaking; Regulatory Amendments to Procedures for the Active and Inactive Vessel Register AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering amending regulations governing the utilization of purse seine vessel capacity limits associated with the Regional Vessel Register of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is intended to provide notice to the public of our planning efforts and request comment that will assist in identifying revised administrative processes to improve the efficient utilization and management of capacity limits. This information will help inform our evaluation of what, if any, regulatory amendments are necessary and advisable.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted in writing by April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0030, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0030, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Attn: Heidi Taylor, Highly Migratory Species Branch Chief, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0030” in the comments.

    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).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Studt, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-4073.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background on the IATTC

    The United States is a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which was established under the 1949 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. In 2003, the IATTC adopted the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (Antigua Convention). The Antigua Convention entered into force in 2010. The United States acceded to the Antigua Convention on February 24, 2016. The full text of the Antigua Convention is available at: https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Antigua_Convention_Jun_2003.pdf.

    The IATTC consists of 21 Members and five Cooperating Non-Members and facilitates the conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the IATTC Convention Area (Convention Area), as well as conducting scientific research on these species. The Convention Area is defined as the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) within the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas, the 50° N latitude, the 150° W longitude, and the 50° S latitude.

    Obligations of the United States Under the IATTC Convention

    As a Party to the Antigua Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement certain decisions of the IATTC. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), as amended on November 5, 2015, by Title II of Public Law 114-81, directs that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and, with respect to enforcement measures, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the United States' international obligations under the Antigua Convention, including recommendations and decisions adopted by the IATTC. The Secretary of Commerce's authority to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS.

    In June 2000, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-00-06: Resolution on a Regional Vessel Register. This Resolution has been amended, including most recently through adoption of Resolution C-14-01, which requires that Members submit a list of all vessels authorized to fish in the EPO to be listed on a Regional Vessel Register (Register). Purse seine vessels are further categorized on the Register as either “active” or “inactive and sunk” (inactive). Recognizing concerns of excess fishing capacity, the IATTC in 2002 adopted Resolution C-02-03: Resolution on the Capacity of the Tuna Fleet Operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Revised). The Resolution established a vessel capacity limit of 158,000 cubic meters for all purse seine vessels authorized by the IATTC to fish for tuna species in the EPO. The Resolution further specified that each Member and Cooperating Non-Member was allocated a purse seine vessel capacity limit by the IATTC based on historical fishing levels in the EPO, the level of tuna stocks, and other relevant factors. Pursuant to C-02-03, the United States was allocated a purse seine capacity limit of 31,866 cubic meters (m3). Each U.S. purse seine vessel listed on the Register, either as active or inactive, counts towards this U.S. capacity limit, except those utilizing a single-trip option exemption as described at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(1).

    Background on the Pacific Purse Seine Fleet

    Since 1971, the number of large (greater than 400 short tons (st) or 362.8 metric tons (mt) carrying capacity) U.S. purse seine vessels fishing for tuna in the EPO has decreased from over 155 to an average of 10 active and inactive large U.S purse seine vessels over the past five years, utilizing an average of roughly 18,209 m3 of capacity. Most of the U.S. vessels that historically fished in the EPO have either re-flagged or are now active in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), fishing under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and a treaty between the United States and certain Pacific Island States (the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America, also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT)). The number of vessels in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has also gradually decreased; shrinking from the late 1990s until 2006, and it has fluctuated since. In recent years, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet has included an average of 37 vessels, with a maximum of 40 vessels allowed to fish under the SPTT. These 37 vessels amount to roughly 55,000 m3 of carrying capacity for reference.

    In the last few years, changing operating conditions in the WCPO and an increase in the costs assessed to U.S. purse seiners for fishing under the SPTT has led to an increased number of large purse seine vessels seeking to be added to the IATTC Register. In 2016, 17 of the 37 purse seiners authorized to fish in the WCPO also fished in the EPO, which means they either utilized capacity on the Active Register or fished under the single-trip option exemption. Additionally, since 2014, small (less than or equal to 400 st or 362.8 mt carrying capacity) coastal purse seiners have had increased opportunities for catching tuna locally, leading to a growing number of small purse seine vessels utilizing active capacity on the Register. Over the last 5 years, an average of 17 small U.S. purse seine vessels have utilized 1,945 m3 of capacity.

    This combination of interest by large and small purse seine vessel has led to the U.S. capacity on the Register to become fully allocated in recent years, such that no additional vessels could be added to the Register. The total capacity of requested vessels have exceeded the available capacity and NMFS anticipates this trend may continue. Thus, NMFS seeks to re-examine the administrative processes associated with the Register to ensure that capacity is being utilized to the full extent possible in the most effective way for both large and small purse seine vessels.

    U.S. Regulations on the Regional Vessel Register

    NMFS has implemented regulations governing U.S. purse seine vessels on the Register at 50 CFR 300.22(b). These regulations include the process for how vessel owners or managing owners request a purse seine vessel be added to the Register, including when and how to submit such a request; when and how to obtain the appropriate vessel and operator permits; pay the vessel assessment fee; and how vessels permitted and authorized under an alternative international tuna purse seine fisheries management regime in the Pacific Ocean may utilize a one-trip option into the EPO while being exempted from the requirement to be included on the Register. The regulations also address processes for removing a vessel from the Register and for replacing those vessels, and establishes criteria to deem requests for active status as “frivolous” for vessels that occupy U.S. capacity on the Register but do not actually fish in a given year. Furthermore, the regulations lay out the prioritization of requests following a specified hierarchy.

    Requests for active status are prioritized according to the hierarchy listed at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(4)(i)(C). In general, the requests are prioritized in the following order: Vessels that were listed as active on the Register in the previous year, vessels that were listed as inactive on the Register in the previous year, vessels not listed on the Register in the previous year prioritized on a first-come, first-serve basis, and vessels which were previously listed on the Register as active in a given year but have been determined to have made a frivolous request.

    Requests for active status are considered “frivolous” if, for a vessel categorized as active in a given calendar year, less than 20 percent of the vessel's total landings, by weight, in that same year is comprised of tuna harvested by purse seine in the Convention Area, or the vessel did not fish for tuna at all in the Convention Area in that same year. Some exceptions to this apply.

    The frivolous request provisions apply only to large purse seine vessels. These provisions are intended to prevent large purse seine vessel owners who do not have intent to fish in the Convention Area from requesting listing on the Register and occupying assigned capacity that may otherwise be utilized by active fishing vessels. Small purse seine vessels are not subject to the frivolous request provisions because owners of small vessels tend to have difficulty anticipating whether unassociated schools of tuna will migrate within the range of the vessels off the U.S. West Coast during the summer months in the upcoming year. Frivolous requests criteria may need to be reexamined to ensure full utilization of the U.S. capacity limit.

    Additionally, there is no time limit for how long a vessel may remain on the Register as inactive, provided the vessel owner or managing owner requests this status every year and pays the associated vessel assessment. Since 2015, a single large purse seine vessel has been on the Register as inactive, occupying 1,523 m3 of capacity that would otherwise be available for actively fishing vessels. NMFS seeks input on whether to restrict the current practice that allows vessels to be continually listed as inactive, to improve the utilization of the U.S. purse seine capacity limit by vessels that will actually fish.

    Lastly, NMFS intends to issue a technical correction to existing U.S. regulations to correct the regulatory carrying capacity to match that on record with the IATTC. A vessel which historically fished in the EPO prior to 2002, and whose carrying capacity was used in the initial capacity calculations for allotment to the United States, had its blueprints re-examined by the IATTC and was found to have had an additional 91 m3 of carrying capacity than what was used in the initial calculation. The IATTC recognized that this re-examination increased the United States' historical capacity, and revised their accounting of U.S. capacity to reflect this. NMFS would, therefore, correct the capacity of 31,775 m3 cited in our domestic regulations to reflect the IATTC's updated accounting that the U.S. capacity allotment is 31,866 m3.

    For additional information on current regulations pertaining to the Register and procedures for purse seine vessels to be authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the EPO, please see the compliance guide located at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fisheries/migratory_species/iattc-rvr-compliance-guide.pdf and the NMFS website http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/migratory_species/regional_vessel_register.html.

    Request for Comment

    NMFS is soliciting comments from the public to help determine what, if any, regulatory amendments could make management of U.S. tuna purse seine vessels on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register more effective. Comments may include suggestions to improve the procedure for making requests to add vessels to the Register, for the identification of “frivolous requests for active status” and management of such requests, or how the hierarchy of prioritization of requests should be structured to allow for capacity to be utilized to the full extent possible in the most effective way. NMFS will fully consider all relevant information and comments received, and if necessary, issue proposed regulatory amendments for further consideration.

    Authority:

    Tuna Conventions Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06373 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 61 Thursday, March 29, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011] Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to the Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program Standards AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that we are making available for review and comment a revised version of the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Herd Certification Program Standards. The CWD Program Standards provide guidance on how to meet CWD Herd Certification Program and interstate movement requirements. We are taking this action to address concerns of State and industry participants about the existing standards.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0011.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0011 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Tracy Nichols, Staff Officer, Cervid Health Team, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response Services, VS, APHIS, USDA, 2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. B, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7380.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of cervids (members of Cervidae, the deer family). Species currently known to be susceptible to CWD include elk, mule deer, moose, white-tailed deer, sika deer, muntjac, reindeer, and black-tailed deer.

    In 2014, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) implemented the National CWD Herd Certification Program (HCP), a voluntary Federal-State-industry cooperative program administered by APHIS and implemented by participating States. Currently, 28 States participate in the program. States and herd owners choosing to participate must comply with the provisions of 9 CFR parts 55 and 81 (referred to below as the regulations), which include requirements for animal identification, interstate movement, fencing, recordkeeping, herd inspections and inventories, animal mortality testing, and response to any findings of CWD-exposed, -suspect, or -positive herds. APHIS monitors the approved State HCPs to ensure consistency with Federal standards by means of annual State reporting. With each year of successful surveillance, participating herds will advance in status. After 5 years with no evidence of CWD, APHIS will certify the herd as being low risk for CWD. Only captive cervids from enrolled herds certified as low risk for CWD may move interstate.

    The CWD Program Standards provide detailed guidance on how to meet the regulatory requirements referred to above. An annual review of the Program Standards is conducted by APHIS in collaboration with State agencies and industry representatives.

    In response to concerns expressed by industry and State partners about the existing CWD Program Standards, published in 2014, we convened a working group in 2016 to review the document. Based on the group's discussions, as well as recommendations from an internal review, we determined that the Program Standards needed to undergo a number of revisions.

    We are advising the public that we have prepared a revised version of the CWD Program Standards. The proposed revisions include the following:

    • Revising the goal statement to focus on reducing the risk of interstate transmission of CWD.

    • Clarifying that the Program Standards include detailed descriptions of suggested methods approved by the APHIS Administrator to meet the regulatory requirements.

    • Making definitions of terms in the Program Standards consistent with the official definitions in the regulations.

    • Describing APHIS' intent to amend the regulations to define susceptible species based on scientific evidence of natural infection or experimental infections through natural routes and adding the genera Rangifer and Muntiacus to the list of susceptible species.

    • Providing support for implementing antemortem immunohistochemistry testing of rectal anal mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (RAMALT) and medial retropharyngeal lymph node (MRPLN) biopsies conducted as a whole-herd test concurrently with genotyping at Prion Protein Gene (PRNP) codon 96 in white-tailed deer in traceback, traceforward, and CWD-exposed herds and for disease management in CWD-positive herds.

    • Providing support for initiating pilot projects using RAMALT and MRPLN biopsies conducted concurrently with genotyping at PRNP codon 132 in elk in traceback, traceforward, and CWD-exposed herds and for disease management in CWD-positive herds to inform decisions about testing protocols.

    • Clarifying the definitions and processes for performing epidemiological investigations.

    • Replacing Appendix VI with a worksheet that States must submit for all positive herds enrolled in the HCP as part of their annual HCP report. Additionally, for any herd for which Federal indemnity is to be paid, a preliminary and final worksheet must have been completed as part of the herd plan by a State representative.

    • Describing the factors that APHIS will consider when making decisions about providing indemnity for CWD-positive, -exposed, and -suspect animals and describing the relative priority of each factor.

    • Clarifying the consequences of poor quality and missing post-mortem surveillance samples on herd status, as well as describing options States may consider as substitutions for these samples.

    • Making the Program Standards language consistent with that of the regulations by requiring CWD testing of all mortalities from certified herds, including at slaughter and on hunt facilities when animals remain under the same ownership.

    • Streamlining the description of fencing characteristics considered necessary to prevent ingress and egress of cervids for HCP-enrolled herds.

    • Eliminating Appendix II: Fencing Requirements and References, and making these scientific references available upon request.

    • Moving Part B, Section 5: Sanitary Precautions and Biosecurity Practices for Herd Plans and Depopulations to an appendix, and simplifying recommendations for premises decontamination.

    • Updating and streamlining Appendix IV: Guidelines for Environmental Contamination.

    • Consolidating the discussion of carcass disposal options in the main body of the Program Standards and deleting Appendix V: Carcass Disposal.

    The revised Program Standards may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice.) The documents are also available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    After reviewing any comments we receive on the proposed updates, we will publish a second notice in the Federal Register announcing our decision regarding the proposed changes.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06341 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meetings of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold public meetings on: Monday April 16th at 4 p.m. Eastern time; Wednesday May 9 at 3 p.m. Eastern time; and Monday May 21 at 4 p.m. Eastern time. The purpose of these meetings is to prepare to release a public report on voting rights in the state.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on:

    • Monday April 16, 2018 at 4 pm Eastern time;

    • Wednesday May 9, 2018 at 3 pm Eastern time; and

    • Monday May 21, 2018 at 4 pm Eastern time.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-224-1065, Conference ID: 1818955.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

    Agenda: Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Voting Rights in Indiana Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: March 26, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06352 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. PST for the purpose of hearing public testimony on human trafficking issues in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. PST.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Call Information: (audio only) Dial: 888-708-5689, Conference ID: 1169274.

    Web Access Information: (visual only) The online portion of the meeting may be accessed through the following link: https://cc.readytalk.com/r/288pn2yb217b&eom.

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

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=270.Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Approve Minutes From Previous Meeting III. Presentations Colleen Owens, Senior Research Associate, Urban Institute Kathleen Maloney, Willamette University College of Law, Professor and Author of Modern Slavery in Our Midst: A Human Rights Report on Ending Human Trafficking in Oregon Hayley Weedn, Co-author and Researcher for Human Trafficking & Native Peoples in Oregon: A Human Rights Christopher Carey, Researcher, Portland State University IV. Public Comment V. Next Steps VI. Adjournment David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06272 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meetings of the Ohio Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold public meetings on Friday, April 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. EDT; and on Monday May 14th at 11:00 a.m. EDT, for the purpose of discussing voting rights in Ohio.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on:

    • Friday, April 13, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. EDT • Monday May 14, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. EDT ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 877-719-9795, Conference ID: 1067599.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Ohio Advisory Committee link (https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=268). Select “meeting details” and “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Project Discussion: “Civil Rights and Voting in Ohio” Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: March 26, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06353 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. PST for the purpose of hearing public testimony on human trafficking issues in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. PST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: (Audio only) Dial: 888-708-5689, Conference ID: 1169274.

    Web access information: (Visual only) The online portion of the meeting may be accessed through the following link: https://cc.readytalk.com/r/cm77egt1kgp1&eom.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=270. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Presentation III. Public Comment IV. Next Steps V. Adjournment Dated: February 13, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06273 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2050] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 30 Under Alternative Site Framework; Salt Lake City, Utah

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 30, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-72-2017, docketed November 16, 2017) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Utah and Weber Counties, Utah and the cities of Brigham City, Corinne, Honeyville, Perry, Erda, Grantsville, Lake Point, Mills Junction, Rush Valley, Stansbury Park, Stockton, Terra, Tooele, Vernon, Heber City, Midway, Coalville, Deer Mountain, Echo, Francis, Henefer, Kamas, Kimball Junction, Oakley, Park City, Peoa, Samak, Silver Summit, Snyderville, Wanship, Woodland and Mantua, Utah, in and adjacent to the Salt Lake City U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry, and FTZ 30's existing Site 2 would be categorized as a magnet site;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (82 FR 55557, November 22, 2017) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 30 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 2 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06354 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-18-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26—Atlanta, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; PBR, Inc. d/b/a/SKAPS Industries (Non-Woven Geotextiles); Athens, Georgia

    PBR, Inc. d/b/a/SKAPS Industries (SKAPS) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Athens, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 9, 2018.

    SKAPS' facility is located within Site 29 of FTZ 26. The facility currently has authority to produce non-woven geotextile fabric using polypropylene staple fiber (PPSF) for a five-year period (until August 23, 2018) subject to a restriction requiring admission of all foreign-status PPSF to the zone under privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). SKAPS' current notification would extend that restricted authority indefinitely.

    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt SKAPS from customs duty payments on the foreign-status material used in its export production of non-woven geotextiles (duty-free). SKAPS would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status material which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The material sourced from abroad is PPSF (duty rate 4.3%), which will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 8, 2018.

    A copy of the notification 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 Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at [email protected] or 202-482-1378.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06350 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-74-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 204—Tri-Cities, Tennessee; Authorization of Production Activity; Eastman Chemical Company (Acetic Anhydride and Acetic Acid); Kingsport, Tennessee

    On November 21, 2017, the Tri-Cities Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 204, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company, within Site 12, in Kingsport, Tennessee.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 56212, November 28, 2017). On March 22, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06348 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2049] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 241; (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the City of Fort Lauderdale, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 241, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-49-2017, docketed August 2, 2017) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include a portion of Broward County known as the Dania Cut, and to expand Subzone 241A, as described in the application, adjacent to the Port Everglades Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (82 FR 37192, August 9, 2017) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 241 to expand the service area and to expand Subzone 241A under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06349 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-67-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26—Atlanta, Georgia; Authorization of Production Activity; Kubota North America Corporation (Agricultural and Specialty Vehicles); Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia

    On November 15, 2017, Kubota North America Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 26P, in Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 55800—55801, November 24, 2017). On March 23, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06356 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-73-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39—Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity; Dallas Airmotive, Inc (Aircraft Engine Refurbishment and Disassembly); DFW Airport, Texas

    On November 20, 2017, Dallas Airmotive, Inc submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 39—Site 1, at DFW Airport, Texas.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 56210-56211, November 28, 2017). On March 20, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06347 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2048] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 124 (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Gramercy, Louisiana

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Port of South Louisiana, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 124, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-5-2017, docketed January 10, 2017, amended February 22, 2017) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Plaquemines and Assumption Parishes, Louisiana, as described in the amended application, adjacent to the Gramercy and New Orleans Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (82 FR 4841-4842, January 17, 2017) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 124 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06355 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet April 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.

    Agenda Public Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman 2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security 3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public 4. Export Enforcement update 5. Regulations update 6. Working group reports 7. Automated Export System update Closed Session 8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than April 10, 2018.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 23, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06375 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-836] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) continues to find that Perfiles LM, S.A. de C.V. (Perfiles) is the successor-in-interest to Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V. (Perfiles y Herrajes) for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities.

    DATES:

    Applicable March 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 13, 2017, Commerce initiated this CCR and published the notice of expedited preliminary results, determining that Perfiles is the successor-in-interest to Perfiles y Herrajes.1 In the Initiation and Expedited Preliminary Results, interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment and request a public hearing regarding our preliminary finding that Perfiles is the successor-in-interest to Perfiles y Herrajes. We received no comments from interested parties nor was a public hearing requested.

    1See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Initiation and Expedited Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 82 FR 54322 (November 17, 2017) (Initiation and Expedited Preliminary Results).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm.

    The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Final Results of the Changed Circumstances Review

    For the reasons stated in the Initiation and Expedited Preliminary Results, and because we received no comments from interested parties, Commerce continues to find that Perfiles is the successor-in-interest to Perfiles y Herrajes. As a result of this determination, we find that Perfiles should receive the antidumping cash deposit rate applicable to Perfiles y Herrajes. Consequently, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all shipments of subject merchandise produced or exported by Perfiles and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at 0.00 percent, which is the current antidumping duty cash-deposit rate for Perfiles y Herrajes.2 This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.

    2 Perfiles y Herrajes was assigned a 0.00 percent margin in the 2013-2014 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on LWRPT from Mexico. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014; 80 FR 69941 (November 12, 2015).

    We are issuing this determination and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06345 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-560-826] Monosodium Glutamate From Indonesia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that PT Cheil Jedang Indonesia (CJI), an exporter of monosodium glutamate (MSG) from Indonesia, did not sell MSG at less than fair value during the period of review (POR) November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Applicable March 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caitlin Monks or Joseph Traw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2670 or (202) 482-6079, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise, CJI. On December 4, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.1 On January 12, 2017, we invited parties to submit comments on the Preliminary Results. 2 On February 12, 2018, CJI filed a case brief.3 No party requested a hearing nor did any file a rebuttal brief. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1See Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 57221 (December 4, 2017) (Preliminary Results).

    2See Memorandum to the File “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Monosodium Glutamate from Indonesia: Case Brief Schedule,” January 12, 2017.

    3See CJ's Case Brief “Monosodium Glutamate (“MSG”) from Indonesia; 2nd Administrative Review; CJ Case Brief,” dated February 12, 2018.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is monosodium glutamate (MSG), whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this order when the resulting mix contains 15 percent or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in this order regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, in monohydrate or anhydrous form, or as substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging.

    MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4Na -H2O, a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 6106-04-3, and a Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII) number of W81N5U6R6U. MSG in anhydrous form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4 Na, a CAS registry number of l42-47-2, and a UNII number of C3C196L9FG.

    Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise covered by this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. These tariff classifications, CAS registry numbers, and UNII numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comment Received

    All issues raised in the sole case brief filed in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 A list of issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (ACCESS). ACESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit of the main Commerce Building, room B-8024. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum is also accessible on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4See Issued and Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comment received, we made changes to our normal value and margin calculations for CJI. A complete discussion of these changes can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These changes did not affect Commerce's determination that sales of subject merchandise by CJI were not made at prices less than normal value during the POR.

    Final Results of Review

    Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by the following company during the POR:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • PT Cheil Jedang Indonesia 0.00
    Assessment Rates

    Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). CJI's weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero percent. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Commerce intends to issue the appropriate assessment instructions for CJI to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for CJI will be the weighted-average dumping margin listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 6.19 percent, as established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.5 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Monosodium Glutamate from the Republic of Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 79 FR 58329 (September 29, 2014).

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These final results are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Issues in the Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issue Comment: Ministerial Corrections to AD Margin Calculations V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-06346 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-039] Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Opportunity To Request Administrative Review Notice AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 5, 2018, Commerce published its opportunity to request an administrative review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders and incorrectly listed the case number for the countervailing duty order on Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China.1 The correct case number for the countervailing duty order on Amorphous Silica Fabric from The People's Republic of China is C-570-039. This notice serves as a correction notice.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 83 FR 9284 (March 5, 2018).

    Dated: March 23, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06344 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG104 Endangered Species; File No. 21233 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 (Responsible Party: Theophilus Brainerd, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and unidentified sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 21233 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hapeman or Erin Markin, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The SEFSC requests a ten-year permit to study sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea including international waters. The objectives of the research are to assess sea turtle populations for anthropogenic threats, abundance estimates, and population structure and mixing rates. Animals for study would be directly captured by hand, hoop net, pound net, seine, cast net, tangle net, or trawl or obtained for study from another legal source such as bycatch in a commercial fishery. Researchers would be authorized to examine, mark, image, collect morphometrics, collect a suite of biological samples, and attach transmitters to live sea turtles before release. A subset of these animals may also undergo hearing trials or laparoscopy and internal tissue sampling when transported and temporarily held in a facility before release. The SEFSC requests a small number of unintentional mortalities, and collection of these carcasses, for each species that may result from capture activities. In addition, live animals may be harassed during vessel and aerial surveys for species counts and observation.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06376 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG062 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, April 13, 2018, from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via internet Webinar. Detailed connection details are available at http://www.mafmc.org. To join the Webinar, follow this link and enter the online meeting room: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/scoq2018ap/

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to develop a fishery performance report by the Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel. The intent of this report is to facilitate structured input from the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel members to the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee. Advisors will also receive an update on the clam dredge access framework under development by the New England Fishery Management Council.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06311 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG018 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Scoping Process AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been preparing an amendment to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, known as the “Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment,” to modify aspects of the fishery management plan related to summer flounder commercial and recreational management. To avoid delaying the amendment while waiting for updated recreational information, the Council is now splitting several issues within this original action, including fishery management plan goals and objectives, commercial allocation, commercial moratorium permits, and commercial framework provisions into a separate action that will continue to be developed as an EIS. The Council is taking comments on this modified action, which is now being referred to as the “Summer Flounder Commercial Issues Amendment.” Following completion of this “Commercial Issues” amendment, the Council may then develop at least one future action relating to recreational fishery issues and commercial/recreational allocation to incorporate updated recreational fishery data when it becomes available later this year. The purpose of this notification is to alert and seek comment from the public about the Council's consideration of splitting this amendment, by delaying some issues to be pursued via later actions.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]; Include “Summer Flounder Amendment Scoping Comments” in the subject line;

    Mail: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901.

    Fax: (302) 674-5399.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 16, 2014, an NOI was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 55432) announcing the Council's intent to prepare an EIS for a broad management action addressing several categories of summer flounder issues in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council initiated this Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to review all aspects of the FMP related to summer flounder. The amendment was intended to consider updating the goals and objectives of the FMP as related to summer flounder, revising the allocation between the commercial and recreational sector, and modifying many management strategies and requirements for both commercial and recreational fisheries for summer flounder. Since publication of the original NOI, the Council has delayed development of recreational fishery issues and recreational/commercial allocation and narrowed the remaining range of issues to a more focused list of priority topics.

    The primary driver of this proposed split is the ongoing revisions to recreational data by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), which are expected to substantially change the current understanding of recreational catch and landings. Due to these changes, the Council and Commission chose to delay development of any issues that would rely heavily on recreational data, including quota allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors, as well as recreational management measures and strategies. If this action was not split, the Council and Commission would either need to wait for revised MRIP data to become available to begin analysis of recreational-related alternatives, or begin analysis with the current data and later revise substantial portions of the document once new MRIP data became available. Because substantial progress has been made on development of alternatives for commercial issues, the Council and Commission have proposed splitting the action in order to more quickly complete the revisions to the commercial issues and FMP objectives without letting these issues become delayed by recreational data revisions.

    The purpose of this revised amendment is to consider revisions to the current qualification criteria for Federal moratorium permit holders, the current allocation of commercial quota, and the current list of frameworkable items in the FMP (i.e., including a provision for commercial landings flexibility). In addition, the purpose of the action is to revise the FMP goals and objectives for summer flounder only. An EIS will be prepared for this action. The Council believes that the measures have separate utility, a clearly unique purpose and need, and are not directly linked to the remaining measures from the original amendment proposed to be pursued in a future action.

    The Council and Commission intend to initiate a separate action or actions once revised MRIP data become available. This future action is expected to consider revisions to the allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors for summer flounder, as well as several recreational fishery issues. General categories of recreational issues previously identified for evaluation include: Recreational process, conservation equivalency framework, and recreational allocations; recreational sector separation (for-hire and/or private mode); alternative recreational strategies (allow for alternatives to minimum size, bag limit, and season restrictions; e.g., slot limits); recreational gear requirements or restrictions; and recreational data collection requirements and protocols.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06314 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG112 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a five-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 16 through Friday, April 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at the Marriott Courtyard hotel, located at 1600 E. Beach Boulevard, Gulfport, MS 39501; telephone: (228) 864-4310.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Monday, April 16, 2018; 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.; Closed Session

    The meeting will begin in a Closed Session of the Full Council all day to hold applicant interviews, select the 2017 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, and to select members to the Shrimp and Reef Fish Advisory Panels.

    Tuesday, April 17, 2018; 8:30 a.m.-5:45 p.m.

    The Coral Committee will meet briefly to review a public hearing draft for Coral Amendment 9. The Shrimp Committee will review updated stock assessments, biological review of the Texas closure, and receive a summary from the Shrimp Advisory Panel Meeting. The Mackerel Committee will review and discuss the South Atlantic Council's Amendment 31: Atlantic Cobia Management. The Administrative/Budget Committee will review the grant expenditures, and anticipated budget activities and funding. The Sustainable Fisheries Committee will review a revised policy statement on the use of descending tools and venting devices and a 5-year review on inclusion/exclusion of species and species groupings in fishery management plans; and hold a discussion on historical captain permits. After lunch, the Reef Fish Management Committee will review the Reef Fish Landings; receive an update on state management of recreational Red Snapper Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs); review a public hearing draft for Joint Reef Fish Amendment 48 and Red Drum Amendment 4—Status Determination Criteria and Optimum Yield; and discuss the State Management Program for Recreational Red Snapper.

    Wednesday, April 18, 2018; 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    The Reef Fish Management Committee will reconvene and receive a presentation on recreational data challenges and potential South Atlantic Council responses; discuss the Commercial Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) Programs; and, review an options paper on framework action Greater Amberjack Recreational Bag Limits, Seasonal Quotas and Commercial Trip Limits. After lunch, the Committee will review the decision tools and amendments for Amendment 42—Reef Fish Management for Headboat Survey and Amendment 41—Allocation-based Management for Federally Permitted Charters Vessels; and, receive a summary from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting.

    Thursday, April 19, 2018; 8:30 a.m.-4:45 p.m.

    The Full Council will reconvene with a Call to Order, Announcements, and Introductions; Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes. The Council will receive a presentation from Mississippi Law Enforcement; a summary from the Law Enforcement Technical Committee meeting; a regulatory review; and, a presentation on Highly Migratory Species on Shortfin Mako. The Council will review Exempted Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications and public comments on EFP applications, if any. After lunch, the Council will receive open public testimony from 12:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on Fishery Issues or Concerns. Anyone wishing to speak during public comment should sign in at the registration station located at the entrance to the meeting room.

    After public testimony, the Full Council will receive committee reports from the Coral, Shrimp, Mackerel and Administrative/Budget Management Committees.

    Friday, April 20, 2018; 8 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

    The Full Council will receive committee reports from Reef Fish and Sustainable Fisheries Management Committees; Announce the 2017 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year; vote on any Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) applications; and receive updates from the following supporting agencies: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, the Department of State.

    Lastly, the Council will discuss any Other Business items.

    —Meeting Adjourns

    The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's website at http://www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on FTP Server under Quick Links. For meeting materials, go to the Gulf Council website or Gulf Council file server and select the “Briefing Books/Briefing Book 2018-04” folder. The username and password are both “gulfguest”. The meetings will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on our website.

    Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council 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 that 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. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06326 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG093 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Center of Independent Experts will meet April 16 through April 18, 2018 to review the stock assessments for Bering Sea and Aleutian Island yellowfin sole, northern rock sole, and Alaska plaice.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 16, 2018 through Wednesday, April 18, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), in Building 4, Room 2039, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Stram, NPFMC staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Terms of Reference

    1. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the assumptions made in applying the stock assessment model including how survey indices are scaled to the populations. Specifics might include:

    a. How natural mortality estimates are estimated/applied.

    b. Assumptions about survey “catchability”.

    c. Application of fishery and survey age-specific schedules (maturity, body mass, selectivity).

    d. The application (or lack thereof) of a stock-recruitment relationship (and associated parameter estimates).

    2. Evaluate the stock assessment approach used focusing specifically on how fisheries and survey data are compiled and used to assess the stock status relative to stated management objectives under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Elements should consider:

    a. The FMP “Tier” designation.

    b. Fishing rate estimation relative to overfishing definitions.

    c. Stock status determinations relative to BMSY.

    3. Recommend how assessment data and/or models could be improved.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06315 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Fastener Quality Act Insignia Recordal Process

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Fastener Quality Act Insignia Recordal Process.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0028.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Number of Respondents: 96 responses per year.

    Average Hours per Response: 20 minutes (0.33 hours) per response.

    Burden Hours: 32 hours annually.

    Cost Burden: $2,121.96.

    Needs and Uses: Under Section 5 of the Fastener Quality Act of 1999 (FQA), 15 U.S.C. 5401 et seq., certain industrial fasteners must bear an insignia identifying the manufacturer. It is also mandatory for manufacturers of fasteners covered by the FQA to submit an application to the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for recordal of the insignia on the Fastener Insignia Register.

    The procedures for the recordal of fastener insignia under the FQA are set forth in 15 CFR 280.300 et seq. The purpose of requiring both the insignia and the recordation is to ensure that certain fasteners can be traced to their manufacturers and to protect against the sale of mismarked, misrepresented, or counterfeit fasteners.

    This information collection was created to facilitate the public's compliance with the insignia recordal provisions of the FQA. The USPTO uses the information in this collection to record or renew insignias under the FQA and to maintain the Fastener Insignia Register, which is open to public inspection. The public may download the Fastener Insignia Register from the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/fastener-quality-act-fqa/fastener-quality-act-fqa.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected]

    Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0028 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 30, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Marcie Lovett, Records and Information Governance Division Director, OCTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06295 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Department of the Air Force U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce the Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.

    DATES:

    Closed to the Public Thursday 12 April 2018, 1:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Mountain Time (MT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, located at 1251 Wyoming Blvd. SE, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico 87123.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Evan Buschmann, (240) 612-5503 (Voice), 703-693-5643 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 1500 West Perimeter Road, Ste. #3300, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762. Website: http://www.sab.af.mil/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. The scheduled sessions of the Air Force SAB Spring Board meeting will be closed to the public because they will discuss classified information and matters covered by Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, subsection (c), subparagraph (1).

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to conduct mid-term reviews of the Scientific Advisory Board's FY18 studies, offering board members the opportunity to hear directly from the Study Chairs on the progress they have made thus far and provide dedicated time to continue collaboration on research.

    Agenda:

    U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Spring Board Meeting 1330-1400 Welcome Remarks, Dr. James S. Chow, Chair, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board 1400-1530 Technologies for Enabling Resilient Command and Control (TRC), Dr. Nils Sandell, Study Chair 1530-1655 Maintaining Technology Superiority for the USAF (MTS), Lt Gen George Muellner, (Ret.), Study Chair 1655-1700 Closing Remarks, Dr. James S. Chow, Chair, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board 1700 Adjourn

    Meeting Accessibility: Closed to the public.

    Written Statements: Any member of the public that wishes to provide input on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Spring Meeting must contact the meeting organizer at the phone number or email address listed in this announcement at least five working days prior to the meeting date. Please ensure that you submit your written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer at least five calendar days prior to the meeting commencement date. The Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer will review all timely submissions and respond to them prior to the start of the meeting identified in this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be considered by the Scientific Advisory Board until the next scheduled meeting. For Further Information Contact: The Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer, Lt Col Mike Rigoni at [email protected] or 703-695-4297, United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 1500 West Perimeter Road, Ste. #3300, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06331 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0016] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Logistics Agency 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 29, 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, 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 Logistics Agency, DLA Human Capital Program Development, ATTN: Tya Dammer, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: DLA Climate Culture Survey; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Needs And Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record the perceptions of DLA employees regarding the organizational culture and climate. The DLA Culture/Climate Survey standardizes how organizational culture/climate is measured across the DLA enterprise, focuses leadership attention on culture/climate, and drives actions to improve the overall culture/climate and DLA organizational performance.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 645.

    Number of Respondents: 860.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 860.

    Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.

    Frequency: Biennially.

    Respondents are Foreign Nationals employed by DLA (and thereby considered members of the public). The DLA Culture/Climate Survey provides a confidential mechanism for employees to share feedback on their work environment, resulting in opportunities for DLA employees and leaders to engage in thoughtful, data-driven discussions that lead to informed action and improve the DLA collective performance.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06271 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0017] 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 29, 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 Military Community and Family Policy, Office of Military Family Readiness, ATTN: Karen Morgan, Alexandria, VA 22350; or email: [email protected]; or call: (571) 372-0859; or FAX: (571) 372-0884.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Basic Criminal History and Statement of Admission (Department of Defense Child Care Services Programs); DD Form 2981; OMB Control Number 0704-0516.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain a self-reported record of criminal history from each individual who comes into regular, reoccurring contact with children under the age of 18 years. Individuals are required to self-report any arrests, charges or convictions that would keep the individual from obtaining or maintaining a favorable suitability or fitness determination. Programs impacted are referenced within the 42 U.S. Code § 13041 and include impacted individuals such as employees, DoD contractors, providers, adults residing in a family child care home, volunteers, and others with regular reoccurring contact with children.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,250.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are DoD contractors, family child care providers, family child care adult family members residing in the home, and specified volunteers who provide child care services for children under age 18. This form will be initiated by DoD staff and will be maintained in the initiating DoD offices and/or appropriate Human Resources or Security Offices.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06284 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pebble Project AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) intends to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to assess the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pebble open pit mine in wetlands, streams and Ocean near Cook Inlet. The EIS will assess potential effects of a range of alternatives.

    DATES:

    Public scoping meetings are tentatively scheduled in Anchorage, Homer, Dillingham, King Salmon (Naknek), Iliamna (Newhalen), Nondalton, and Kokhanok (Iguigig) will occur in mid-April 2018. Information about these meetings and meeting dates will be published locally, posted at http://www.pebbleprojecteis.com, and available by contacting the Corps.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 6898, Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, AK 99506-0898.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about the proposed action and the Draft EIS should be referred to: Mr. Shane McCoy, Regulatory Division, telephone: (907) 753-2715 at http://www.pebbleprojecteis.com or by mail to the above address. To be added to the project mailing list and for additional information, please visit the following website: http://www.pebbleprojecteis.com.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    An application for a Department of the Army permit was submitted by the Pebble Limited Partnership pursuant Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) on December 22, 2017, and was advertised in a Public Notice, POA-2017-271, on January 5, 2018. The public notice is available on Alaska District's public website at: http://www.poa.usace.army.mil//Portals/34/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/2018/POA-2017-271%20Pebble_PN.pdf?ver=2018-01-05-153755-640.

    1. Description of the Proposed Project. Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) is proposing to develop the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry deposit as an open-pit mine, with associated infrastructure, in southwest Alaska, north of Lake Iliamna. The proposed project would require approximately four years to construct, with a projected mine life of approximately 20 years. Major project components include excavation of an open pit, that ultimately would be approximately 6,500 feet long by 5,500 feet wide, with depths between 1,330 and 1,750 feet; a tailings impoundment with 1.1 billion tons storage volume; a low grade ore stockpile with the capacity to store up to 330 million tons; an open pit overburden stockpile; a mill facility processing approximately 160,000 tons of ore per day; a natural gas-fired power plant with a total connected load of 230 mega-watt (MW), supplied by a 188-mile, 10 to 12-inch diameter, natural gas pipeline across Cook Inlet and Iliamna Lake to the Mine Site; and transportation infrastructure including a 30-mile road from the Mine Site to a ferry terminal on the north shore of Iliamna Lake, an 18-mile crossing with an ice-breaking ferry to a terminal on the south shore of Iliamna Lake, and a 35-mile road to the proposed Amakdedori Port on Cook Inlet. The proposed mine and related facilities would have a total footprint of approximately 5.9 square miles.

    The pipeline route would originate on the Kenai Peninsula, connecting to the existing gas pipeline infrastructure near Happy Valley. A metering station would be constructed at the off-take point and the pipeline would then follow south along the Sterling Highway for 9 miles to a gas-fired compressor station north of Anchor Point. The compressor station would feed a 94-mile subsea pipeline from the east shore of Cook Inlet to Amakdedori Port on the west shore. A second gas-fired compressor station would be located at the port site. The pipeline route would then follow a 30-mile mine access road to the south shore of Iliamna Lake, where the pipeline would enter Iliamna Lake for approximately 18 miles. The pipeline would come ashore at on the north shore of the lake, where it would follow the mine access road to the Mine Site.

    2. Alternatives. A range of alternatives of the proposed action will be identified, and those found to be reasonable and practicable will be fully evaluated in the DEIS, including: the no action alternative, the applicant's proposed alternative, alternative mine locations and mine plans, alternative mining methods and processes, alternatives that may result in avoidance and minimization of impacts, and mitigation measures not in the proposed action. However, this list is not exclusive and additional alternatives may be considered for inclusion.

    3. Scoping Process and Public Involvement. The scoping period will extend from April 1, 2018, through April 30, 2018. Scoping is conducted to assist in determining the scope of analysis, significant issues and alternatives to be analyzed in depth in the DEIS. Comments should be as specific as possible. Additional public involvement will be sought through the implementation of the public involvement plan and the agency coordination team.

    4. Significant Issues. Numerous issues will be analyzed in depth in the DEIS related to the effects of the proposed Pebble mine and associated infrastructure construction, operation, and closure. These issues will include, but will not be limited to, the following: wetlands, water quality, air quality, hazardous materials, fish and wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, food production, land use, needs and welfare of the people (socioeconomics including commercial fishing and tourism), recreation, general environmental concerns, historic properties, navigation, and safety.

    5. Additional Review and Consultation. Additional review and consultation which will be incorporated into the preparation of the DEIS will include, but are not necessarily limited to coordination under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Essential Fish Habitat coordination; consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act

    Shelia Newman, Deputy Chief, Regional Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06369 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0030] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0030. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 216-44, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Patricia Kilby-Robb, 202-260-2225.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance to Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0016.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 102.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 136.

    Abstract: This request is for an extension of OMB approval to collect data for the Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance to Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices formerly titled Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grant Awards Database. This current data collection is being coordinated with the EDFacts Initiative to reduce respondent burden and fully utilize data submitted by States and available to the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Specifically, under the current data collection, ED collects CSP grant award information from grantees (State agencies, charter management organizations, and some schools) to create a new database of current CSP-funded charter schools. Together, these data allow ED to monitor CSP grant performance and analyze data related to accountability for academic purposes, financial integrity, and program effectiveness.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06244 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0819] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 29, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0819.

    Title: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund.

    Form Numbers: FCC Form 555, FCC Form 481, FCC Form 497, FCC Form 5629, FCC Form 5630, FCC Form 5631.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households and business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 17,547,843 respondents; 20,317,788 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .0167 hours-253 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, biennial, monthly, daily and on occasion reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 5, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Communications Act of 1996, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,972,641 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $937,500.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. The Commission completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for some of the information collection requirements contained in this collection. The PIA was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 38686 on August 15, 2017. The PIA may be reviewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Some of the requirements contained in this information collection affect individuals or households, and thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. The FCC's system of records notice (SORN) associated with this collection is FCC/WCB-1, “Lifeline Program.”

    The Commission will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”).

    As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission published FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38686).

    Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection after this 60-day comment period to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of revisions to this information collection.

    On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted the Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, WC Docket Nos, 17-287, 11-42, 09-197, Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, FCC 17-155 (2017) (Lifeline Fourth Report and Order), which limited enhanced Tribal Lifeline support to facilities-based carriers on Tribal lands to more efficiently utilize Universal Service funds. This revision implements the requirement that ETCs provide written notice to their customers who are currently receiving enhanced support who will no longer be eligible for enhanced Tribal support. In addition, the Commission seeks to update the number of respondents for most of the existing information collection requirements, thus increasing the total burden hours for some requirements and decreasing the total burden hours for other requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06370 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0463] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before May 29, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0463.

    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 03-112, FCC 07-110, FCC 07-186.

    Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or household; State, Local and Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,072 respondents; 7,299 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to 50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annually, monthly, on occasion, and one-time reporting requirements; Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure requirements.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at section 225 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the ADA, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,822 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $10,800.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48152) which became effective on September 24, 2014.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: The FCC completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy-Impact-Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is submitting this modified information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to transfer burden hours and costs associated with regulations under section 225 of the Communications Act (Act), which is currently approved under OMB control number 3060-1249, to this information collection. The Commission intends to discontinue information collection 3060-1249 once this information collection is approved.

    On December 21, 2001, the Commission released the 2001 TRS Cost Recovery Order, document FCC 01-371, published at 67 FR 4203, January 29, 2002, in which the Commission:

    (a) Directed the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (TRS Fund) administrator to continue to use the average cost per minute compensation methodology for the traditional TRS compensation rate;

    (b) required TRS providers to submit certain projected TRS-related cost and demand data to the TRS Fund administrator to be used to calculate the rate; and

    (c) directed the TRS Fund administrator to expand its form for providers to itemize their actual and projected costs and demand data, to include specific sections to capture speech-to-speech (STS) and video relay service (VRS) costs and minutes of use.

    In 2003, the Commission released the 2003 Second Improved TRS Order, published at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 2003, which among other things required that TRS providers offer certain local exchange carrier (LEC)-based improved services and features where technologically feasible, including a speed dialing requirement which may entail voluntary recordkeeping for TRS providers to maintain a list of telephone numbers. See also 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)(vi)(B).

    In 2007, the Commission released the Section 225/255 VoIP Report and Order, published at 72 FR 43546, August 6, 2007, extending the disability access requirements that apply to telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers under 47 U.S.C. 225, 255 to interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP) service providers and equipment manufacturers. As a result, under rules implementing section 225 of the Act, interconnected VoIP service providers are required to publicize information about telecommunications relay services (TRS) and 711 abbreviated dialing access to TRS. See also 47 CFR 64.604(c)(3).

    In 2007, the Commission also released the 2007 Cost Recovery Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, published at 73 FR 3197, January 17, 2008, in which the Commission:

    (a) Adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate traditional TRS and interstate STS based on the Multi-state Average Rate Structure (MARS) plan, under which interstate TRS compensation rates are determined by weighted average of the states' intrastate compensation rates, and which includes for STS additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach;

    (b) requires STS providers to file a report annually with the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission on their specific outreach efforts directly attributable to the additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach.

    (c) adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate captioned telephone service (CTS), as well as internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), based on the MARS plan;

    (d) adopted a cost recovery methodology for internet Protocol (IP) Relay based on price caps;

    (e) adopted a cost recovery methodology for VRS that adopted tiered rates based on call volume;

    (f) clarified the nature and extent that certain categories of costs are compensable from the Fund; and

    (g) addressed certain issues concerning the management and oversight of the Fund, including prohibiting financial incentives offered to consumers to make relay calls.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06371 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act Meetings; Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    4:00 p.m. (telephonic), March 28, 2018.

    STATUS:

    Closed session.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: March 27, 2018. Dharmesh Vashee, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06427 Filed 3-27-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing and Collaboration; Notification of Q&A Webinar AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention named in this notice is owned by agencies of the United States Government and is available for licensing in accordance with the U.S. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. Related data for 510(k) submission is available as part of the licensing package. The technology and related data are being licensed to achieve expeditious commercialization of federally funded research and development. A U.S. Provisional patent application has been filed to extend market coverage. CDC also seeks collaboration partners with interest in adapting the test for different equipment, point-of-care, or more rapid processing.

    DATES:

    Individuals interested in this technology opportunity are invited to participate in a live question and answer webinar on April 27, 2018 at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Licensing, related data for 510(k) submission, and other information pertaining to the technology listed below, may be obtained by writing to Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D-42, Atlanta, GA 30329; Telephone (404)639-1330; or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Description of Technology

    CDC Trioplex Real-time RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction) Assay for Detection of Zika, Dengue, & Chikungunya Virus Infections CDC ref. no.: I-009-17 NIH ref. no.: E-081-2017 (See https://www.ott.nih.gov/technology/e-081-2017.)

    CDC has developed the Trioplex real-time RT-PCR test to detect evidence of Zika, dengue and chikungunya virus infections, all of which are spread by mosquito bites from the same Aedes species and cause epidemics in more than 100 countries. The real-time RT-PCR assay is for qualitative detection and differentiation of RNA (ribonucleic acid) from dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses in serum, whole blood, and cerebral spinal fluid, and for the qualitative detection of Zika virus RNA in urine and amniotic fluid. This assay protocol is designed to facilitate simultaneous testing for the three viruses using a single sample in the same plate well (multiplex). A singleplex reaction (measuring one analyte at a time) is also an option for chikungunya, and dengue testing if one primer/probe set per well is preferred. The test can be run in different modalities and equipment available in most laboratories. The test has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive results. Cross-reactivity for any of the components is not expected. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Trioplex assay on March 17, 2016. Additional information can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/EmergencySituations/UCM491592.pdf.

    Currently, there are no vaccines or therapeutics commercially available for Zika, dengue, or chikungunya virus infections.

    Competitive advantages:

    • Currently, there is no multiplex assay on the market that can detect Zika, chikungunya and the four dengue subtypes in one test; this test will also help assess disease severity in dengue secondary infections • There is no FDA-approved chikungunya PCR test on the market and current Zika and dengue tests must be run separately • This was the first molecular test for Zika to receive FDA's EUA Question and Answer Webinar

    Individuals interested in this technology opportunity are invited to participate in a live question and answer webinar on April 27, 2018 at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Individuals must pre-register for the session by sending an email to [email protected] by Thursday, April 26, at 1 p.m. EDT.

    After requesting the registration, participants will receive a confirmation of their registration along with access information to enter prior to the webinar. Persons interested in this technology are strongly encouraged to register for and participate in the webinar.

    A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement (available under Forms at www.cdc.gov/tto) will be required to receive copies of unpublished patent applications and other information.

    Inventors: Jorge Munoz-Jordan, Robert Lanciotti, and Gilberto Santiago.

    U.S. PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Application No. PCT/US2017/023021: Filed March 17, 2017.

    (CDC Ref. #: I-009-17; NIH Ref. #E-081-2017—See https://www.ott.nih.gov/technology/e-081-2017.)

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06306 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers CMS-10148] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10148 HIPAA Administrative Simplification (Non-Privacy/Security) Complaint Form

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of the currently approved collection.; Title of Information Collection: HIPAA Administrative Simplification (Non-Privacy/Security) Complaint Form; Use: The authority for administering and enforcing compliance with the non-privacy/security Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules has been delegated to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). At present, CMS' compliance and enforcement activities are primarily complaint-based. Although our enforcement efforts are focused on investigating complaints, they may also include conducting compliance reviews to determine if a covered entity is in compliance. Potential violations can come through a complaint form or a compliance review.

    This standard form collects identifying and contact information of the complainant, as well as, the identifying and contact information of the filed against entity (FAE). This information enables CMS to respond to the complainant and gather more information if necessary, and to contact the FAE to discuss the complaint and CMS' findings.

    In addition to the identifying and contact information, the standard form collects a summary which outlines the nature of the complaint. This summary is used to determine the validity of the complaint, and to categorize the complaint as related to transactions, standards, code sets, unique identifiers, and/or operating rules. This ensures the appropriate direction of the complaint process and enables CMS to produce accurate reports regarding complaint activity.

    The revision form associated with this submission adds an option for filing complaints under Unique Identifier and Operating Rules. It also requests an email address for filed against entities, if available. Form Number: CMS-10148 (OMB Control number: 0938-0948); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals; Number of Respondents: 125; Total Annual Responses: 125; Total Annual Hours: 125. (For policy questions regarding this collections contact Kevin Steward at 410-786-6149.)

    Dated: March 26, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06312 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369] Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate; Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry on generic doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets, entitled “Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate.” The revised draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 29, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on the draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369 for “Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate; Revised Draft Guidancefor Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” will be publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

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

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33311), FDA announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Guidance for Industry on Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific Products” that explained the process that would be used to make product-specific guidances available to the public on FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on the guidances. This notice announces the availability of a revised draft guidance for generic doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets.

    FDA initially approved new drug application (NDA) 050795 for DORYX (doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets) in May 2005. In May 2009, FDA issued a draft guidance for industry on generic doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets and most recently revised that guidance in June 2015. On May 20, 2016, FDA approved a supplement to NDA 050795 for a new formulation of doxycycline hyclate delayed-release tablets in equivalent to (EQ) 60 milligram (mg) and EQ 120 mg strengths under the trade name Doryx MPC. We are now issuing another revised draft guidance for industry on doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets to include recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence to these strengths.

    In November 2016, Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd submitted a citizen petition requesting that FDA require certain in vitro dissolution criteria as part of the BE demonstration for any ANDA referencing DORYX MPC. FDA has reviewed the issues raised in this citizen petition and is responding to the citizen petition separately in the docket for that citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-4047, available at https://www.regulations.gov).

    This revised draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The revised draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06253 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0875] Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on May 22, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    College Park Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, General Vessey Ballroom, 3501 University Blvd., Hyattsville, MD 20783. The conference center's telephone number is 301-985-7300. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA Advisory Committee meetings may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. Information about the College Park Marriott Hotel and Conference Center can be accessed at: https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/wasum-college-park-marriott-hotel-and-conference-center/.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-0875. The docket will close on May 21, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by May 21, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of May 21, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before May 8, 2018, will be provided to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.

    You may submit comments 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-N-0875 for “Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see the ADDRESSSES section), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA 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 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 the information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committees will be asked to discuss new drug application (NDA) 209588, for buprenorphine sublingual spray, submitted by INSYS Development Company, Inc., for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain where the use of an opioid analgesic is appropriate. The committees will also be asked to discuss whether this product should be approved.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May 8, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 30, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 1, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Moon Hee V. Choi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06307 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6644] Fiscal Year 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “FY 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives.” The purpose of the public workshop is to provide an overview of the status of regulatory science initiatives for generic drugs and an opportunity for public input on these initiatives. FDA is seeking this input from a variety of stakeholders—industry, academia, patient advocates, professional societies, and other interested parties—as it fulfills its commitment under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (GDUFA II) to develop an annual list of regulatory science initiatives specific to generic drugs. FDA will take the information it obtains from the public workshop into account in developing its fiscal year (FY) 2019 regulatory science initiatives.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on May 24, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by June 25, 2018. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, sections B and C), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop 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.

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 25, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of June 25, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6644 for “FY 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives; Public Workshop; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4736, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7960, [email protected]; or Robert Lionberger, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4722, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7957, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In July 2012, Congress passed the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA I) (Pub. L. 112-144). GDUFA I was designed to enhance public access to safe, high-quality generic drugs and to modernize the generic drug program. To support this goal, FDA agreed in the GDUFA I commitment letter to work with industry and interested stakeholders on identifying regulatory science initiatives specific to generic drugs for each fiscal year covered by GDUFA I.

    In August 2017, GDUFA I was reauthorized until September 2022 through GDUFA II (Pub. L. 115-52). In the GDUFA II commitment letter,1 FDA agreed to conduct annual public workshops “to solicit input from industry and stakeholders for inclusion in an annual list of GDUFA II [r]egulatory [s]cience initiatives.” The public workshop scheduled for May 24, 2018, seeks to fulfill this agreement.

    1 The GDUFA II commitment letter is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/GenericDrugUserFees/UCM525234.pdf.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    The purpose of the public workshop is to obtain input from industry and other interested stakeholders on the identification of generic drug regulatory science initiatives for FY 2019.

    FDA is particularly interested in receiving input regarding the following three topics:

    1. FY 2018 regulatory science initiatives,2 including specific products or actions that FDA should consider as it implements those initiatives,

    2 The FY 2018 regulatory science initiatives are available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/GenericDrugs/UCM582777.pdf.

    2. newly approved new drug applications that may pose scientific challenges to the future development of generic products referencing those applications, and

    3. regulatory science initiatives that FDA should begin to consider in FY 2019.

    FDA will consider all comments made at this workshop or received through the docket (see ADDRESSES) as it develops its FY 2019 regulatory science initiatives. Information concerning the regulatory science initiatives for generic drugs can be found at https://www.fda.gov/gdufaregscience.

    III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration: To register for the public workshop, please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone to [email protected] Please also indicate in the email whether attendance will be by webcast or in person.

    Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by April 24, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie Choi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than April 24, 2018.

    Requests for Oral Presentations: During online registration you may indicate if you wish to present during a public comment session or participate in a specific session, and which topic(s) you wish to address. We will do our best to accommodate requests to make public comments (and requests to participate in the focused sessions). Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their presentations, and request time for a joint presentation, or submit requests for designated representatives to participate in the focused sessions. Following the close of registration, we will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time each oral presentation is to begin, and will select and notify participants by May 8, 2018. All requests to make oral presentations must be received by the close of registration on April 24, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. If selected for presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to [email protected] no later than May 17, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public workshop.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will also be webcast. Please register online by April 24, 2018, midnight Eastern Time to attend the workshop remotely. Please note that remote attendees will not be able to speak or make presentations during the public comment period or during any other session of the workshop. To join the workshop via the webcast, please go to https://collaboration.fda.gov/gdufa2018/.

    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.

    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public workshop is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov or at https://www.fda.gov/gdufaregscience. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES). A link to the transcript will also be available on the internet at https://www.fda.gov/gdufaregscience.

    Dated: March 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06260 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1015] Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 24 and 25, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1015. The docket will close on April 23, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by April 23, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 23, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before April 10, 2018, will be provided to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.

    You may submit comments 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-N-1015 for “Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see the ADDRESSES section), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committees will be asked to discuss supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 20998, for CELEBREX (celecoxib) capsules submitted by Pfizer, Inc., which includes the results from the PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs. Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) trial, a cardiovascular outcomes randomized controlled trial that compared celecoxib to ibuprofen and naproxen, and determine whether the findings of the trial change FDA's current understanding of the safety of these three NSAIDs. In order to interpret some of the PRECISION findings, the committees will also consider the clinical implications of the drug interactions between each of these three NSAIDs and aspirin in patients taking aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see ADDRESSES) on or before April 10, 2018, will be provided to the committees. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. on April 25, 2018. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 2, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 3, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Shepherd (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act(5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06309 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Invention; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC 2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301- 402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive any unpublished information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following inventions are available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Technology description follows.

    Lentiviral Protein Delivery System for RNA-Guided Genome Editing

    Description of Technology: This invention provides an HIV-1-based lentiviral vector system for gene correction strategies involving a homologous recombination with a variation of the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Such systems are being explored as potential therapies for certain hereditary diseases. This system comprises (a) a lentivirus vector particle comprising a lentiviral genome which encodes at least one guide RNA sequence that is complementary to a first DNA sequence in a host cell genome, (b) a Cas9 protein, and optionally (c) a donor nucleic acid molecule comprising a second DNA sequence. In addition, the invention provides a host cell comprising the foregoing system, as well as a method of altering a DNA sequence in a host cell comprising contacting a host cell with the foregoing system. Alternatively, the invention also provides a fusion protein comprising a Cas9 protein and a cyclophilin A (CypA) protein, wherein the fusion protein binds to the lentivirus vector particle, as well as a lentiviral vector particle comprising such a fusion protein. Other such lentivirus-based vectors encode a guide RNA, which contains a specific sequence that recognizes a target gene, and a Cas9 endonuclease, which cuts at the specific site. However, such systems present some problems due to constitutive expression of Cas9 endonuclease in lentiviral vector-transduced cells and the large size of the Cas9 gene. The variation of this invention delivers the Cas9 endonuclease directly, instead of the gene encoding the protein.

    Potential Commercial Applications: Clinical trials for hereditary diseases such as sickle-cell disease and beta-thalassemia are good market opportunities. Gene correction using the disclosed lentiviral vector system are being tested with respect to the beta-globin gene and the BCL11A gene to treat sickle-cell disease and will be used for induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) generation.

    Development Stage: Early-stage. In vitro data in cell-line models available.

    Inventors: Naoya Uchida, Juan J. Haro Mora and John F. Tisdale (NHLBI).

    Intellectual Property: US Application No. 62/236,223, filed October 2, 2015 and PCT/US2016/054759, filed September 30, 2016, (NIH Reference No. E-165-2015/0,1).

    Publications: Lentiviral protein delivery system for RNA-guided genome editing, PCT Publication No. WO/2017/059241, published April 6, 2017.

    Licensing Contact: Cristina Thalhammer-Reyero, Ph.D., M.B.A.; 301-435-4507; [email protected]

    Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate or commercialize this technology. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Denise Crooks at [email protected]

    Dated: March 22, 2018. Cristina Thalhammer-Reyero, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer and Development, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06364 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with the attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.

    Date: June 1, 2018.

    Open: 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

    Agenda: A report by the Scientific Director, NICHD, on the status of the NICHD Division of Intramural Research; talks by various intramural scientists, and current organizational structure.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 11:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Constantine A. Stratakis, MD, D(med)Sci, Scientific Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Building 31A, Room 2A46, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5984, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/meetings/Pages/index.aspx, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 23, 2018. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06259 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.

    Date: May 7-8, 2018.

    Time: May 7, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: NICHD Director's report; Inclusion at NIH; Clinical Trials Policy Updates; Update on NIH Rehabilitation Research Plan Analysis; Communication and Dissemination Strategies; Pathways to Prevention.

    Place: NICHD Offices, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Rooms 1425/1427, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Time: May 8, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Pragmatic Trials at NIH; Rehabilitation 2030: WHO Effort; Scientific Presentation on Multimodal Approaches.

    Place: NICHD Offices, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Rooms 1425/1427, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Ralph M. Nitkin, Ph.D., Deputy Director, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2116, MSC 7002, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-4206, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/advisory/nabmrr/Pages/index.aspx where the current roster and minutes from past meetings are posted.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 23, 2018. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06258 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0042] Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; Vacancies AGENCY:

    U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee. The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's jurisdiction.

    DATES:

    Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before May 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:

    By Email: [email protected]; Subject Line: Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee;

    By Fax: (202) 372-8380 ATTN: Lieutenant Jake Lobb; or

    By Mail: Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, Commandant, Hazardous Materials Division (CG-ENG-5), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Jake Lobb of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; (202) 372-1428; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

    The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's jurisdiction.

    The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meets at least twice per year. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees may meet to consider specific problems as required.

    The U.S. Coast Guard will consider applications for 8 positions that become vacant on September 16, 2018. The membership categories are: Chemical manufacturing, marine handling or transportation of chemicals, vessel design and construction, marine safety or security, and marine environmental protection. All members of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee are Representatives. Each Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee member serves for a term of three years, and may serve no more than two consecutive three-year terms. A member appointed to fill an unexpired term may serve the remainder of that term. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.

    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, via one of the transmittal methods in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice. All email submittals will receive email receipt confirmation.

    Dated: March 23, 2018. Jeffrey G. Lantz, Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06385 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2018-0012; OMB No. 1660-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Catastrophic Resource Catalog AGENCY:

    U.S. Fire Administration, 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 new information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the identification and cataloging of fire and emergency services personnel and equipment that might be available to support a catastrophic national disaster response.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2018-0012. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Murray, Fire Program Specialist, FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration, (301) 447-1588, [email protected] You may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Implementation of the concepts within the National Response Framework (NRF) and Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP) is mandatory for Federal departments and agencies. See 6 U.S.C. 314. According to the NRF, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), as a support agency to Emergency Support Function (ESF)—4, Firefighting, is responsible for coordinating the support for the detection and suppression of fires. To meet the requirements of the FIOP, the USFA, supporting the Core Capability of Fire Management and Suppression, will provide National Incident Management System (NIMS) resources (e.g., personnel and equipment) necessary to support wildland, rural, and urban firefighting operations resulting from, or occurring coincidentally with, an all-hazards incident requiring a coordinated national response for assistance.

    Flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes do not follow geo-political boundaries. The larger and more widespread the event, the greater the likelihood that the existing local mutual-aid systems will not meet the demands placed upon them. Fire and Emergency Services will need to draw on assistance from systems beyond their normal mutual-aid boundaries, executing regional, statewide and interstate mutual-aid systems. For example, the State Emergency Management Agency may coordinate the use of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). Many Federal agencies who have a role in disaster response under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., depend to some extent on the support of skilled and equipped citizens. However, during a catastrophic event (such as in a New Madrid earthquake), these mutual-aid systems will be immediately overwhelmed. Responders who support Fire and Emergency Services, as well as involved Federal agencies themselves, may be impacted to such an extent that they are not available to deploy.

    The goal of this information collection is to help facilitate a sustained response to a catastrophic event where response services are limited and the demand for them is overwhelmed. The information contained in the National Catastrophic Resource Catalog (NCRC) will provide a foundation to supplement existing mutual-aid systems and sustain a long-term response operation. The USFA staff, deployed to the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) in Washington DC, will assess the situation and evaluate the availability of the NIMS-typed capabilities and credentialed personnel contained in the NCRC. The information will be used by NRCC personnel to coordinate the deployment of teams, persons and equipment to sustain the response operation.

    Collection of Information

    Title: National Catastrophic Resource Catalog.

    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.

    OMB Number: OMB Collection 1660-NEW.

    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 035-0-1, National Catastrophic Resource Catalog.

    Abstract: This information collection will help USFA meet the ESF-4 firefighting resource requirements before/during a national catastrophic disaster response, such as an earthquake, hurricane, or terroristic act. USFA will pre-identify those specialized resources that may be available to support a disaster response. This collection will be solicited from the nation's fire and emergency services on a voluntary basis to establish a catalog/database of potential resources that could be mobilized to support a national catastrophic disaster response.

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,947.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 3,947.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 439.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $23,728.94.

    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.

    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $85,824.49.

    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 13, 2018. William H. Holzerland, Senior Director for Information Management, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06277 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-45-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2018-0016] Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) will meet in-person and via webinar on Thursday, April 12, 2018. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The HSSTAC meeting will take place Thursday, April 12, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    The meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    Due to security requirements, screening pre-registration is required for this event. Please see the REGISTRATION section below.

    ADDRESSES:

    1120 Vermont Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Kareis, HSSTAC Designated Federal Official, S&T Interagency Office (IAO), STOP 0205, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Washington, DC 20528-0205, 202-254-8778 (Office), 202-254-6176 (Fax), [email protected] (Email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The committee addresses areas of interest and importance to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T), such as new developments in systems engineering, cyber-security, knowledge management and how best to leverage related technologies funded by other Federal agencies and by the private sector. It also advises the Under Secretary on policies, management processes, and organizational constructs as needed.

    II. Registration

    If you plan to attend the meeting in-person, you must RSVP by April 10, 2018. To register, email [email protected] with the following subject line: “RSVP to HSSTAC Meeting.” The email should include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, email address, and telephone number of those interested in attending.

    To pre-register for the webinar, please send an email to [email protected] with the following subject line: “RSVP to HSSTAC Meeting.” The email should include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, email address, and telephone number of those interested in attending. You must RSVP by April 11, 2018.

    For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Michel Kareis as soon as possible listed above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    III. Public Comment

    At the end of the open session, there will be a period for oral statements. Please note that the comments period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for oral statements. To register as a speaker, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    To facilitate public participation, we invite public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the Agenda below. Anyone is permitted to submit comments at any time, including orally at the meeting. However, those who would like their comments reviewed by committee members prior to the meeting must submit them in written form no later than April 9, 2018. Please include the docket number (DHS-2018-0016) and submit via one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 202-254-6176.

    Mail: Michel Kareis, HSSTAC Designated Federal Official, S&T IAO, STOP 0205, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Washington, DC 20528-0205.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and docket number DHS-2018-0016. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read the background documents or comments received by the HSSTAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number into the search function: DHS-2018-0016.

    Agenda: The session will begin with remarks from the Designated Federal Official, Michel Kareis, and the Committee Chair, Dr. Vincent Chan. Next, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (SOPDUSST) will provide an overview of his priorities, including the S&T revitalization plan, the DHS Leadership Year and a discussion on proposed HSSTAC tasking.

    The afternoon session will begin with DHS S&T highlights and subcommittee updates. Information will be provided by the Social Media Working Group for Emergency Services and Disaster Management Subcommittee (SMWGEDSC), Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Subcommittee, and Systems Engineering Authority Subcommittee. In addition, a new subcommittee on Technology Scouting and Technology Forecasting will be announced.

    There will be a discussion on new topics for the SMWGDSC, including future technology and shifts in trends. The final session of the day will be on Technology Scouting and Forecasting.

    A public comment period will be held at the end of the open session.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Denis Gusty, Alternate Designated Federal Official for the HSSTAC.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06388 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9F-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Changes, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION:

    30-Day Notice of Information collection for review; Form No. I-901; Fee Remittance for Certain F, J and M Non-immigrants; OMB Control No. 1653-0034.

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2017, at 82 FRN 58011, allowing for a 60-day comment period. USICE received one comment in connection with the 60-day notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, with changes, of a currently approved information collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Fee Remittance for Certain F, J and M Nonimmigrants.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: ICE Form I-901. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Public Law 104-208, Subtitle D, Section 641 directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Education, to develop and conduct a program to collect information on nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange visitors from approved institutions of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended or in a program of study at any other DHS approved academic or language-training institution, to include approved private elementary and secondary schools and public secondary schools, and from approved exchange visitor program sponsors designated by the Department of State (DOS). The rule, “Adjusting Program Fees and Establishing Procedures for Out-of-Cycle Review and Recertification of Schools Certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program to Enroll F and/or M Nonimmigrant Students,” (73 FR 55683; September 26, 2008), authorized a fee to be collected from the F and M nonimmigrants, not to exceed $200, and a fee to be collected from the exchange visitors, not to exceed $180, to support this information collection program. DHS has implemented the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to carry out this statutory requirement.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 740,410 responses at 19 minutes (.32 hours) per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 236,931 annual burden hours.

    Dated: March 26, 2018. Scott Elmore, PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06351 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6088-FA-01] Announcement of Tenant Protection Voucher Funding Awards for Fiscal Year 2017 for the Housing Choice Voucher Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of Fiscal Year 2017 Awards.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this document notifies the public of Tenant Protection Voucher (TPV) funding awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to public housing agencies (PHAs) under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP). The purpose of this notice is to publish the names, addresses of awardees, and the amount of their non-competitive funding awards for assisting households affected by housing conversion actions, public housing relocations and replacements, moderate rehabilitation replacements, and HOPE VI voucher awards.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Milan Ozdinec, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4204, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 402-1380 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 927-7589.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations governing the HCVP are published at 24 CFR 982. The purpose of the rental assistance program is to assist eligible families to pay their rent for decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private rental market. The regulations for allocating housing assistance budget authority under Section 213(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 are published at 24 CFR part 791, subpart D.

    The FY 2017 awardees announced in this notice were provided HCVP tenant protection vouchers (TPVs) funds on an as-needed, non-competitive basis, i.e., not consistent with the provisions of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFAs). TPV awards made to PHAs for program actions that displace families living in public housing were made on a first-come, first-served basis in accordance with PIH Notice 2007-10, Voucher Funding in Connection with the Demolition or Disposition of Occupied Public Housing Units, and PIH Notice 2017-10, “Implementation of the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 Funding Provision for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.” Awards for the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) were provided for Rental Supplement and Rental Assistance Payment Projects (RAD Second Component) consistent with PIH Notice 2012-32 (HA), REV-2, “Rental Assistance Demonstration-Final Implementation, Revision 2.” Announcements of awards provided under the NOFA process for Mainstream, Designated Housing, Family Unification (FUP), and Veterans Assistance Supportive Housing (VASH) programs will be published in a separate Federal Register notice.

    Awards published under this notice were provided (1) to assist families living in HUD-owned properties that are being sold; (2) to assist families affected by the expiration or termination of their Section 8 Project-based and Moderate Rehabilitation contracts; (3) to assist families in properties where the owner has prepaid the HUD mortgage; (4) to assist families in projects where the Rental Supplement and Rental Assistance Payments contracts are expired (RAD—Second Component); (5) to provide relocation housing assistance in connection with the demolition of public housing; (6) to assist individuals affected by the expiration or termination of their Section 8 single room occupancy (SRO) contracts; and (7) to assist families in public housing developments that are scheduled for demolition in connection with a HUD-approved HOPE VI revitalization or demolition grant, and (8) to assist families consistent with PIH Notice 2016-12, “Funding Availability for Tenant Protection Voucher for Certain At-Risk Households in Low Vacancy Areas-Fiscal Year 2016.”

    A special administrative fee of $200 per occupied unit was provided to PHAs to compensate for any extraordinary HCVP administrative costs associated with the Multifamily Housing conversion actions.

    The Department awarded total new budget authority of $94,468,761 to recipients under all the above-mentioned categories for 9,218 housing choice vouchers. This budget authority includes $1,386,144 of unobligated commitments made in FY 2016. These funds were reserved by September 30, 2016, but not contracted until FY 2017, and thus have been included with obligated commitments for FY 2017.

    In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses of awardees, and their award amounts in Appendix A. The awardees are listed alphabetically by State for each type of TPV award.

    Dated: March 20, 2018. Dominique G. Blom, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Section 8 Rental Assistance Programs Announcement of Awards for Fiscal Year 2017 Housing agency Address Units Award Special Fees Special Fees—At-Risk Households CA: SAN JOSE HOUSING AUTHORITY 505 WEST JULIAN STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 0 $21,200 MA: BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 52 CHAUNCY STREET, BOSTON, MA 02111 0 6,400 Total for Special Fees—At-Risk Households 0 27,600 Special Fees—Opt-Outs/Terminations CA: CITY OF LOS ANGELES HSG AUTH 2600 WILSHIRE BLVD., 3RD FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 0 5,600 CA: COUNTY OF SHASTA HSG AUTH 1670 MARKET STREET, STE. 300, REDDING, CA 96001 0 1,800 CT: ANSONIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 36 MAIN STREET, ANSONIA, CT 06401 0 1,200 DC: DC HOUSING AUTHORITY 1133 NORTH CAPITOL STREET NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002 0 23,200 FL: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 1300 BROAD STREET, JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 0 9,200 IA: CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL 2309 EUCLID AVE., DES MOINES, IA 50310 0 23,400 IA: NORTHWEST IOWA REGIONAL HA P.O. BOX 446, 919 2ND AVENUE SW, SPENCER, IA 51301 0 1,400 IL: CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY 60 EAST VAN BUREN ST., 11TH FLOOR, CHICAGO, IL 60605 0 1,000 IL: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK 175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 350, CHICAGO, IL 60604 0 22,000 IL: HSG AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF 33928 N U.S. HIGHWAY 45, GRAYSLAKE, IL 60030 0 31,600 KS: KANSAS CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1124 NORTH NINTH STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101 0 1,600 KS: ELLIS COUNTY PHA C/O NORTHWEST KS HOUSING, INC., P.O. BOX 248, 319 N POMEROY 0 1,000 KY: HOPKINSVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 400 NORTH ELM STREET, P.O. BOX 437, HOPKINSVILLE, KY 0 2,600 MA: SPRINGFIELD HSG AUTHORITY 25 SAAB COURT, P.O. BOX 1609, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01101 0 5,600 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG. DEV. AUTH P.O. BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 0 25,000 MN: ST. PAUL PHA 555 NORTH WABASHA, SUITE 400, ST. PAUL, MN 55102 0 8,600 MN: WORTHINGTON HRA 819 TENTH STREET, WORTHINGTON, MN 56187 0 1,800 MN: ST. CLOUD HRA 1225 WEST ST. GERMAIN, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 0 1,200 MN: NW MN MULTI-COUNTY HRA P.O. BOX 128, MENTOR, MN 56736 0 600 MO: ST. CLAIR CO. HSG. AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 125, APPLETON CITY, MO 64724 0 1,800 MS: MISS REG H A II P.O. BOX 1887, OXFORD, MS 38655 0 17,400 NC: HA OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE P.O. BOX 36795, 1301 SOUTH BOULEVARD, CHARLOTTE, NC 28236 0 7,000 NC: HA COUNTY OF WAKE 100 SHANNON STREET, P.O. BOX 399, ZEBULON, NC 27597 0 5,600 ND: STUTSMAN COUNTY HOUSING 300 2ND ST NE-200, JAMESTOWN, ND 58401 0 1,200 ND: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE P.O. BOX 5, ASHLEY, ND 58413 0 2,600 ND: DICKEY/SARGENT HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 624, 309 NORTH 2ND, ELLENDALE, ND 58436 0 5,800 ND: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE 3530 33RD AVENUE NE, HARVEY, ND 58341 0 2,800 NE: OMAHA HOUSING AUTHORITY 1805 HARNEY STREET, OMAHA, NE 68102 0 4,600 NE: CENTRAL NEBRASKA JOINT HSG AUTH P.O. BOX 509, LOUP CITY, NE 68853 0 3,200 NJ: VINELAND HOUSING AUTHORITY 191 CHESTNUT AVENUE, VINELAND, NJ 08360 0 2,000 NV: SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL 340 NORTH 11TH ST., LAS VEGAS, NV 89104 0 1,600 NY: THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPT. OF HSG. PRESERVATION & DEV., 100 GOLD STREET, ROOM 501 0 200 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORPORATION 38-40 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12207 0 19,200 OH: COLUMBUS METRO. HA 880 EAST 11TH AVENUE, COLUMBUS, OH 43211 0 9,600 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN ROAD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 0 1,600 OH: CINCINNATI METROPOLITAN 1635 WESTERN AVE., CINCINNATI, OH 45214 0 31,200 OH: STARK METROPOLITAN HOUSING 400 EAST TUSCARAWAS STREET, CANTON, OH 44702 0 7,200 OH: MEDINA MHA 850 WALTER ROAD, MEDINA, OH 44256 0 3,400 PA: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF 200 ROSS STREET, ATTN: PATRICK BLACKWELL, PITTSBURGH, PA 0 21,200 PA: PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 12 SOUTH 23RD STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 0 46,000 PA: BETHLEHEM HOUSING AUTHORITY 645 MAIN STREET, 4TH FLOOR OFFICES, BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 0 1,600 PA: FAYETTE COUNTY HOUSING 624 PITTSBURGH ROAD, UNIONTOWN, PA 15401 0 8,000 SD: CITY OF LENNOX HOUSING & P.O. BOX 265, HIGHWAY 17 AT SECOND AVE., LENNOX, SD 57039 0 400 SD: CITY OF MITCHELL HOUSING & 200 E 15TH AVE., MITCHELL, SD 57301 0 1,000 TX: GRAND PRAIRIE HSNG & COMM DEV P.O. BOX 534045, 205 W CHURCH ST., GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75053 0 4,000 TX: DALLAS COUNTY HOUSING 2377 N STEMMONS FREEWAY, SUITE 600-LB 12, DALLAS, TX 75207 0 10,200 WA: KING COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 600 ANDOVER PARK WEST, SEATTLE, WA 98188 0 20,800 WA: BELLINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 208 UNITY ST. LOWER LEVEL, P.O. BOX 9701, BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 0 9,600 WA: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH 12625 4TH AVE. W, SUITE 200, EVERETT, WA 98204 0 4,600 WA: PIERCE COUNTY HOUSING 603 S POLK, P.O. BOX 45410, TACOMA, WA 98445 0 2,800 Total for Special Fees—Opt-Outs/Terminations 0 426,600 Special Fees—Prepays CT: ANSONIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 36 MAIN STREET, ANSONIA, CT 06401 0 4,400 FL: HA MIAMI BEACH 200 ALTON ROAD, MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 0 6,200 IL: SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 200 NORTH ELEVENTH STREET, SPRINGFIELD, IL 62703 0 18,200 MA: CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 675 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 0 68,000 MA: HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 475 MAPLE STREET, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 0 8,400 MA: CHICOPEE HOUSING AUTHORITY 128 MEETINGHOUSE ROAD, CHICOPEE, MA 01013 0 32,600 MA: WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 40 BELMONT STREET, WORCESTER, MA 01605 0 31,200 MA: WESTFIELD HSG AUTHORITY ALICE BURKE WAY, P.O. BOX 99, WESTFIELD, MA 01085 0 49,600 MD: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE 417 EAST FAYETTE STREET, BALTIMORE, MD 21201 0 35,800 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG. DEV. AUTH P.O. BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 0 12,800 NJ: ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 227 VERMONT AVENUE, P.O. BOX 1258, ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 0 40,400 NY: ALBANY HOUSING AUTHORITY 200 SOUTH PEARL, ALBANY, NY 12202 0 11,000 NY: HA OF ROCHESTER 675 WEST MAIN STREET, ROCHESTER, NY 14611 0 75,400 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORPORATION 38-40 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12207 0 3,200 TX: GRAND PRAIRIE HSNG & COMM DEV P.O. BOX 534045, 205 W CHURCH ST., GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75053 0 40,000 UT: HA OF CITY OF OGDEN 1100 GRANT AVE., OGDEN, UT 84404 0 8,800 WV: WHEELING HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 2089, 11 COMMUNITY STREET, WHEELING, WV 26003 0 24,400 Total for Special Fees—Prepays 0 470,400 Special Fees—RAD Conversions CA: SAN FRANCISCO HSG AUTH 1815 EGBERT AVE., SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 0 26,600 CO: LITTLETON HSG AUTH 5844 S DATURA ST., LITTLETON, CO 80120 0 41,800 MA: HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 475 MAPLE STREET, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 0 15,200 NJ: ELIZABETH HOUSING AUTHORITY 688 MAPLE AVENUE, ELIZABETH, NJ 07202 0 200 NY: THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPT. OF HSG. PRESERVATION & DEV., 100 GOLD STREET, ROOM 501 0 9,400 WA: SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 120 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, P.O. BOX 19028, SEATTLE, WA 98109 0 6,800 Total for Special Fees—RAD Conversions 0 100,000 Special Fees—Relocation—Rent Supplement MA: BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 52 CHAUNCY STREET, BOSTON, MA 02111 0 21,400 MA: WAKEFIELD H A 26 CRESCENT ST., WAKEFIELD, MA 01880 0 8,600 Total for Special Fees—Relocation—Rent Supplement 0 30,000 Total for Special Fees 0 1,054,600 Public Housing TP Choice Neighborhood Relocation (Sunset Provision) CA: SAN FRANCISCO HSG AUTH 1815 EGBERT AVE., SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 89 1,434,218 CT: NORWALK HOUSING AUTHORITY 241/2 MONROE STREET, NORWALK, CT 06856 36 545,918 NJ: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF 2021 WATSON STREET, CAMDEN, NJ 08105 192 1,600,494 WI: HA OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE P.O. BOX 324, 809 NORTH BROADWAY, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 100 627,840 Total for Choice Neighborhood Relocation (Sunset Provision) 417 4,208,470 Choice Neighborhood Replacement CA: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HOUSING 801 12TH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 141 1,211,235 KY: LOUISVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 420 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, LOUISVILLE, KY 40203 117 912,263 MO: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF KANSAS 920 MAIN STREET, SUITE 701, KANSAS CITY, MO 64106 78 558,960 Total for Choice Neighborhood Replacement 336 2,682,458 CPD—SRO Replacement CO: FORT COLLINS HSG AUTH 1715 W MOUNTAIN AVE., FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 15 121,997 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN ROAD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 6 37,347 PA: PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 12 SOUTH 23RD STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 24 194,412 Total for CPD—SRO Replacement 45 353,756 Mod Rehab—RAD CA: SAN FRANCISCO HSG AUTH 1815 EGBERT AVE., SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 133 2,712,402 CO: LITTLETON HSG AUTH 5844 S DATURA ST., LITTLETON, CO 80120 209 1,715,572 NY: THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPT. OF HSG. PRESERVATION & DEV., 100 GOLD STREET, ROOM 501 47 558,180 WA: SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 120 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, P.O. BOX 19028, SEATTLE, WA 98109 34 404,026 Total for Mod Rehab—RAD 423 5,390,180 Mod Replacements CA: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HOUSING 801 12TH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 1 8,490 CA: ALAMEDA COUNTY HSG AUTH 22941 ATHERTON STREET, HAYWARD, CA 94541 8 115,392 CO: AURORA HOUSING AUTHORITY 10745 E KENTUCKY AVENUE, AURORA, CO 80012 48 456,180 DC: DC HOUSING AUTHORITY 1133 NORTH CAPITOL STREET NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002 38 413,834 FL: HA MIAMI BEACH 200 ALTON ROAD, MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 128 1,963,787 IA: CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL 2309 EUCLID AVE., DES MOINES, IA 50310 12 59,463 MD: MARYLAND DEPT OF HSG & 7800 HARKINS ROAD, LANHAM, MD 20706 1 7,516 MI: DETROIT HOUSING COMMISSION 1301 EAST JEFFERSON AVENUE, DETROIT, MI 48207 5 35,778 NY: CITY OF NORTH TONAWANDA C/O BELMONT HOUSING RESOURCES, 1195 MAIN ST., BUFFALO, NY 3 11,577 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN ROAD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 2 12,449 TX: SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY 818 S FLORES STREET, P.O. BOX 1300, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78295 27 172,156 WA: HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF 1207 COMMERCE AVENUE, LONGVIEW, WA 98632 8 42,300 WV: CHARLESTON/KANAWHA HA 1525 WASHINGTON STREET WEST, P.O. BOX 86, CHARLESTON, WV 4 21,177 WV: HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF P.O. BOX 1475, 1600 HILL AVENUE, BLUEFIELD, WV 24701 6 7,769 Total for Mod Replacements 291 3,327,868 MTW Replacement MA: CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 675 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 173 2,919,998 Total for MTW Replacement 173 2,919,998 Relocation—Sunset DC: DC HOUSING AUTHORITY 1133 NORTH CAPITOL STREET NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002 257 3,600,416 RI: NEWPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY 120B HILLSIDE AVENUE, NEWPORT, RI 02840 4 43,806 TX: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF EL PASO 5300 PAISANO, EL PASO, TX 79905 0 29,687 Total for Relocation—Sunset 261 3,673,909 Replacement CA: SAN FRANCISCO HSG AUTH 1815 EGBERT AVE., SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 848 14,238,763 CA: CITY OF LOS ANGELES HSG AUTH 2600 WILSHIRE BLVD., 3RD FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 62 659,072 CA: ALAMEDA COUNTY HSG AUTH 22941 ATHERTON STREET, HAYWARD, CA 94541 50 721,056 CT: MERIDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY 22 CHURCH STREET, MERIDEN, CT 06450 116 1,191,343 DE: NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY 313 E MAIN STREET, NEWARK, DE 19711 1 7,971 FL: HA PALM BEACH COUNTY 3432 W 45TH STREET, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 44 475,591 IL: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JOLIET 6 SOUTH BROADWAY STREET, JOLIET, IL 60436 120 1,206,202 IL: MENARD COUNTY HOUSING 101 W SHERIDAN ROAD, PETERSBURG, IL 62675 238 1,296,281 IN: EAST CHICAGO HA 4920 LARKSPUR DR., P.O. BOX 498, EAST CHICAGO, IN 46312 0 586,193 MD: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE 417 EAST FAYETTE STREET, BALTIMORE, MD 21201 58 580,527 MD: ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY HOUSING 7885 GORDON COURT, P.O. BOX 817, GLEN BURNIE, MD 21060 100 1,168,453 MS: MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL HOUSING P.O. BOX 1051, COLUMBUS, MS 39703 13 59,940 NY: THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY 1511 CENTRAL PARK AVE., P.O. BOX 35, YONKERS, NY 10710 32 389,710 PA: MCKEESPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY 2901 BROWNLEE AVENUE, MCKEESPORT, PA 15132 11 68,746 RI: NEWPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY 120B HILLSIDE AVENUE, NEWPORT, RI 02840 30 328,540 TX: HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 2640 FOUNTAIN VIEW, HOUSTON, TX 77057 111 844,022 TX: CORPUS CHRISTI HOUSING 3701 AYERS STREET, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78415 122 907,650 TX: GALVESTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 4700 BROADWAY, GALVESTON, TX 77551 31 248,983 TX: TAYLOR HSG AUTHORITY 311-C EAST 7TH STREET, TAYLOR, TX 76574 52 345,065 UT: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE 3595 S MAIN STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 2 15,544 VA: NORFOLK REDEVELOPMENT & H/A 201 GRANBY ST., P.O. BOX 968, NORFOLK, VA 23501 24 207,800 VQ: VIRGIN ISLANDS HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 7668, ST. THOMAS, VI 00801 283 2,473,375 VT: RUTLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY 5 TREMONT STREET, RUTLAND, VT 05701 25 139,135 WA: HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF 3107 COLBY AVE., P.O. BOX 1547, EVERETT, WA 98206 60 574,185 Total for Replacement 2,433 28,734,147 Witness Relocation Assistance CO: JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING 7490 WEST 45TH AVENUE, WHEATRIDGE, CO 80033 1 16,056 CT: DANBURY HOUSING AUTHORITY 2 MILL RIDGE ROAD, P.O. BOX 86, DANBURY, CT 06810 1 18,000 CT: STRATFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 295 EVERETT STREET, P.O. BOX 668, STRATFORD, CT 06497 1 14,424 FL: HA WEST PALM BEACH GENERAL 1715 DIVISION AVENUE, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 1 26,280 FL: HA FORT LAUDERDALE CITY 437 SW 4TH AVENUE, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33315 1 21,612 FL: BROWARD COUNTY HOUSING 4780 NORTH STATE ROAD 7, LAUDERDALE LAKES, FL 33319 1 11,532 MA: BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 52 CHAUNCY STREET, BOSTON, MA 02111 2 43,872 Total for Witness Relocation Assistance 8 151,776 Total for Public Housing TP 4,387 51,442,562 Housing TP Certain At-Risk Households Low Vacancy CA: SAN JOSE HOUSING AUTHORITY 505 WEST JULIAN STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 104 1,559,289 MA: BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 52 CHAUNCY STREET, BOSTON, MA 02111 32 462,048 Total for Certain At-Risk Households Low Vacancy 136 2,021,337 New Hsg Conversion Rent Supplement MA: BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 52 CHAUNCY STREET, BOSTON, MA 02111 107 1,400,703 MA: WAKEFIELD H A 26 CRESCENT ST., WAKEFIELD, MA 01880 43 479,607 Total for New Hsg Conversion Rent Supplement 150 1,880,310 Prepayment—RAD MA: HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 475 MAPLE STREET, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 76 502,384 Total for Prepayment—RAD 76 502,384 Pre-payment Vouchers CT: ANSONIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 36 MAIN STREET, ANSONIA, CT 06401 22 215,149 FL: HA MIAMI BEACH 200 ALTON ROAD, MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 18 160,194 IL: SPRINGFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY 200 NORTH ELEVENTH STREET, SPRINGFIELD, IL 62703 91 514,496 MA: CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 675 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 340 5,586,392 MA: HOLYOKE HOUSING AUTHORITY 475 MAPLE STREET, HOLYOKE, MA 01040 42 277,633 MA: CHICOPEE HOUSING AUTHORITY 128 MEETINGHOUSE ROAD, CHICOPEE, MA 01013 163 1,115,898 MA: WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY 40 BELMONT STREET, WORCESTER, MA 01605 156 1,033,344 MA: WESTFIELD HSG AUTHORITY ALICE BURKE WAY, P.O. BOX 99, WESTFIELD, MA 01085 248 1,541,657 MD: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE 417 EAST FAYETTE STREET, BALTIMORE, MD 21201 179 1,791,625 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG. DEV. AUTH P.O. BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 64 391,089 NJ: ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 227 VERMONT AVENUE, P.O. BOX 1258, ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 202 2,232,504 NY: ALBANY HOUSING AUTHORITY 200 SOUTH PEARL, ALBANY, NY 12202 55 356,730 NY: HA OF ROCHESTER 675 WEST MAIN STREET, ROCHESTER, NY 14611 377 1,986,624 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORPORATION 38-40 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12207 16 164,329 TX: GRAND PRAIRIE HSNG & COMM DEV P.O. BOX 534045, 205 W CHURCH ST., GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75053 200 1,574,112 UT: HA OF CITY OF OGDEN 1100 GRANT AVE., OGDEN, UT 84404 44 225,641 WV: WHEELING HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 2089, 11 COMMUNITY STREET, WHEELING, WV 26003 122 600,884 Total for Pre-payment Vouchers 2,339 19,768,301 Relocation 8bb Sunset WA: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH 12625 4TH AVE. W, SUITE 200, EVERETT, WA 98204 24 240,849 Total for Relocation 8bb Sunset 24 240,849 Rent Supplement—RAD NJ: ELIZABETH HOUSING AUTHORITY 688 MAPLE AVENUE, ELIZABETH, NJ 07202 1 10,555 Total for Rent Supplement—RAD 1 10,555 Termination/Opt-Out Vouchers CA: COUNTY OF SHASTA HSG AUTH 1670 MARKET STREET, STE. 300, REDDING, CA 96001 9 43,197 CT: ANSONIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 36 MAIN STREET, ANSONIA, CT 06401 6 61,712 DC: DC HOUSING AUTHORITY 1133 NORTH CAPITOL STREET NE, WASHINGTON, DC 20002 116 1,625,090 FL: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 1300 BROAD STREET, JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 46 310,274 IA: CITY OF DES MOINES MUNICIPAL 2309 EUCLID AVE., DES MOINES, IA 50310 117 580,572 IA: NORTHWEST IOWA REGIONAL HA P.O. BOX 446, 919 2ND AVENUE SW, SPENCER, IA 51301 7 21,762 IL: CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY 60 EAST VAN BUREN ST., 11TH FLOOR, CHICAGO, IL 60605 5 52,788 IL: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK 175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 350, CHICAGO, IL 60604 110 1,295,874 IL: HSG AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF 33928 N U.S. HIGHWAY 45, GRAYSLAKE, IL 60030 158 1,295,897 KS: KANSAS CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1124 NORTH NINTH STREET, KANSAS CITY, KS 66101 8 56,191 KS: ELLIS COUNTY PHA C/O NORTHWEST KS HOUSING, INC., P.O. BOX 248, 319 N POMEROY 5 19,944 KY: HOPKINSVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 400 NORTH ELM STREET, P.O. BOX 437, HOPKINSVILLE, KY 13 47,139 MA: SPRINGFIELD HSG AUTHORITY 25 SAAB COURT, P.O. BOX 1609, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01101 28 205,091 MI: MICHIGAN STATE HSG. DEV. AUTH P.O. BOX 30044, LANSING, MI 48909 125 763,845 MN: ST. PAUL PHA 555 NORTH WABASHA, SUITE 400, ST. PAUL, MN 55102 43 334,156 MN: WORTHINGTON HRA 819 TENTH STREET, WORTHINGTON, MN 56187 9 33,205 MN: ST. CLOUD HRA 1225 WEST ST. GERMAIN, ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 6 32,858 MN: NW MN MULTI-COUNTY HRA P.O. BOX 128, MENTOR, MN 56736 3 12,770 MO: ST. CLAIR CO. HSG. AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 125, APPLETON CITY, MO 64724 9 43,728 MS: MISS REG H A II P.O. BOX 1887, OXFORD, MS 38655 87 607,963 NC: HA OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE P.O. BOX 36795, 1301 SOUTH BOULEVARD, CHARLOTTE, NC 28236 35 330,704 NC: HA COUNTY OF WAKE 100 SHANNON STREET, P.O. BOX 399, ZEBULON, NC 27597 28 192,961 ND: STUTSMAN COUNTY HOUSING 300 2ND ST. NE—200, JAMESTOWN, ND 58401 6 21,745 ND: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE P.O. BOX 5, ASHLEY, ND 58413 13 46,995 ND: DICKEY/SARGENT HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 624, 309 NORTH 2ND, ELLENDALE, ND 58436 29 87,933 ND: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE 3530 33RD AVENUE NE, HARVEY, ND 58341 14 37,763 NE: OMAHA HOUSING AUTHORITY 1805 HARNEY STREET, OMAHA, NE 68102 23 163,375 NE: CENTRAL NEBRASKA JOINT HSG AUTH P.O. BOX 509, LOUP CITY, NE 68853 16 96,975 NH: KEENE HOUSING 831 COURT STREET, KEENE, NH 03431 0 44,940 NJ: VINELAND HOUSING AUTHORITY 191 CHESTNUT AVENUE, VINELAND, NJ 08360 10 93,670 NV: SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL 340 NORTH 11TH ST., LAS VEGAS, NV 89104 8 77,917 NY: THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPT. OF HSG. PRESERVATION & DEV, 100 GOLD STREET, ROOM 501 1 11,876 NY: NYS HSG TRUST FUND CORPORATION 38-40 STATE STREET, ALBANY, NY 12207 96 957,646 OH: COLUMBUS METRO. HA 880 EAST 11TH AVENUE, COLUMBUS, OH 43211 48 297,827 OH: CUYAHOGA MHA 8120 KINSMAN ROAD, CLEVELAND, OH 44104 8 49,796 OH: CINCINNATI METROPOLITAN 1635 WESTERN AVE., CINCINNATI, OH 45214 156 989,781 OH: STARK METROPOLITAN HOUSING 400 EAST TUSCARAWAS STREET, CANTON, OH 44702 36 173,137 OH: MEDINA MHA 850 WALTER ROAD, MEDINA, OH 44256 17 85,362 PA: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF 200 ROSS STREET, ATTN: PATRICK BLACKWELL, PITTSBURGH, PA 106 731,413 PA: PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 12 SOUTH 23RD STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 230 2,362,753 PA: BETHLEHEM HOUSING AUTHORITY 645 MAIN STREET, 4TH FLOOR OFFICES, BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 8 62,145 PA: FAYETTE COUNTY HOUSING 624 PITTSBURGH ROAD, UNIONTOWN, PA 15401 40 221,626 SD: CITY OF LENNOX HOUSING & P.O. BOX 265, HIGHWAY 17 AT SECOND AVE., LENNOX, SD 57039 2 9,779 SD: CITY OF MITCHELL HOUSING & 200 E 15TH AVE., MITCHELL, SD 57301 5 14,777 TX: GRAND PRAIRIE HSNG & COMM DEV P.O. BOX 534045, 205 W CHURCH ST., GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75053 20 157,411 TX: DALLAS COUNTY HOUSING 2377 N STEMMONS FREEWAY, SUITE 600—LB 12, DALLAS, TX 75207 51 371,668 WA: KING COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 600 ANDOVER PARK WEST, SEATTLE, WA 98188 104 1,734,296 WA: BELLINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY 208 UNITY ST. LOWER LEVEL, P.O. BOX 9701, BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 48 321,512 WA: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH 12625 4TH AVE. W, SUITE 200, EVERETT, WA 98204 23 234,410 WA: PIERCE COUNTY HOUSING 603 S POLK, P.O. BOX 45410, TACOMA, WA 98445 14 121,614 Total for Termination/Opt-Out Vouchers 2,105 17,547,863 Total for Housing TP 4,831 41,971,599 Grand Total 9,218 94,468,761
    [FR Doc. 2018-06363 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5846-N-02] Waivers and Alternative Requirements for the Jobs Plus Initiative Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Since Fiscal Year 2014, Jobs Plus has provided competitive grants to partnerships between public housing authorities (PHAs), local workforce investment boards established under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and other agencies and organizations that provide support to help public housing residents obtain employment and increase earnings. On March 13, 2015, HUD published a Federal Register notice announcing waivers and alternative requirements for Jobs Plus. This notice clarifies that those waivers and alternative requirements continue to apply until HUD publishes a Federal Register notice announcing a change in Federal law that requires HUD to alter or amend this Notice on terms and conditions as to how Jobs Plus funds may be used.

    DATES:

    Applicability Date: March 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To assure a timely response, please electronically direct requests for further information to this email address: [email protected] Written requests may also be directed to the following address: Office of Public and Indian Housing—Jayme A. Brown, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4120, Washington, DC 20410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Jobs Plus promotes economic empowerment in low-income areas by providing funding to PHAs that develop locally-based, job-driven approaches to increase earnings and advance employment outcomes through work readiness, employer linkages, job placement, educational advancement, technology skills, and financial literacy for residents of public housing. Congress first appropriated funds for the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, (Pub. L. 113-76, approved January 17, 2014) (2014 Appropriations Act), and continued to appropriate funds for the program in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, (Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriation Act), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, (Pub. L. 114-113, approved December 18, 2015), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, approved May 5, 2017). Each year, the provisions pertaining to Jobs Plus have remained substantially the same.

    On March 13, 2015, HUD published a Federal Register notice at 80 FR 13415 titled “Jobs-Plus Pilot Initiative,” which announced waivers and alternative requirements for Jobs Plus. This notice clarifies that those waivers and alternative requirements continue to apply as long as Congress continues to appropriate funds for Jobs Plus, and the provisions governing the use of those funds remain substantially the same. HUD will announce any revisions to the waivers and alternative requirements for Jobs Plus in future Federal Register notices. The list of waivers and alternative requirements that were in the March 13, 2015, notice is published in the appendix of this notice. HUD has made minor revisions to the language in the appendix from what was published in 2015 for clarity, but the waivers and alternative requirements remain substantively the same. The revised language clarifies that individuals, and not families, must enroll in Jobs Plus in order to obtain the benefit of a Jobs Plus earned income disregard; that PHAs may disallow all incremental increases in earned income from rent determinations for individuals in Jobs Plus public housing projects; and that the period of this disallowance is up to 48 months, beginning on the date on which a public housing resident enrolls in the Jobs Plus program and ending at the end of the grant period. The language in the appendix also reflects that HUD revised its regulations since the 2015 notice was published so that there is a standard lifetime maximum two-year earned-income disallowance period.

    II. Environmental Review

    This Notice involves administrative and fiscal requirements related to income limits and exclusions with regard to calculation of rental assistance which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Dated: March 20, 2018. Dominique Blom, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Appendix—Jobs Plus Initiative and Alternative Requirements

    The statutes that have appropriated funds for the Jobs Plus program (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. 113-76; the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. 113-235; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113; and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 115-31) provide that HUD is authorized to waive or alter the rent and income limitation requirements under sections 3 and 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as necessary to implement Jobs Plus. The list of waivers and alternative requirements, as described above, follows:

    I. Public Housing Rent Calculation

    Permissive exclusions for public housing. Provisions affected: Section 6(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d), 3(b)(5)(B) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a), and 24 CFR 5.609(c). Alternative requirements: The PHA shall calculate the annual earned income for Job