Federal Register Vol. 83, No.68,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 68 (April 9, 2018)

Page Range15019-15289
FR Document

83_FR_68
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 15289 - Delegation of Authorities Under Section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018PDF
83 FR 15179 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 15177 - Sunshine Act Meetings: National Science BoardPDF
83 FR 15191 - Notice of Opportunity: Criteria and Application Procedures for the Military Airport Program (MAP).PDF
83 FR 15189 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in McLennan County, Tex.PDF
83 FR 15155 - International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Cannabis Plant and Resin; Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis; Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; Stereoisomers of Tetrahydrocannabinol; Cannabidiol; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 15190 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in McLennan County, Tex.PDF
83 FR 15131 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Financial Education ProgramsPDF
83 FR 15054 - Removal of the Office of the United States Trade Representative Rules Concerning Classification and Safeguarding of National Security InformationPDF
83 FR 15168 - Solicitation of Appointment Nominations to the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 15165 - Meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working GroupPDF
83 FR 15074 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference; Correcting AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 15067 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJPDF
83 FR 15178 - Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water ReactorsPDF
83 FR 15133 - National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality Integrity; MeetingPDF
83 FR 15125 - Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 15091 - Proposed Establishment of the Upper Hudson Viticultural AreaPDF
83 FR 15177 - Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 15177 - Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 15219 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 15198 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
83 FR 15212 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 15201 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
83 FR 15138 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Emera Energy Services SubsidiariesPDF
83 FR 15180 - New Postal ProductPDF
83 FR 15136 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.PDF
83 FR 15137 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.PDF
83 FR 15137 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Supercritical CO2PDF
83 FR 15096 - Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MDPDF
83 FR 15143 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 15143 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 15129 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017PDF
83 FR 15129 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary DeterminationPDF
83 FR 15127 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 15213 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 15221 - Hours of Service of Drivers: National Tank Truck Carriers and Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association; Application for ExemptionPDF
83 FR 15233 - General Motors LLC, Receipt of Third Petition for Inconsequentiality and Notice of ConsolidationPDF
83 FR 15216 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 15214 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 15195 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 15232 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 15225 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 15223 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 15202 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 15222 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private CarriersPDF
83 FR 15176 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
83 FR 15162 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program, OMB #0915-0140-RevisionPDF
83 FR 15164 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Telehealth Resource Center Performance Measurement Tool, OMB No. 0915-0361, RevisionPDF
83 FR 15236 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
83 FR 15236 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project CommitteePDF
83 FR 15194 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Wittman Regional AirportPDF
83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
83 FR 15195 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Southern Utah UniversityPDF
83 FR 15236 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
83 FR 15175 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: United StatesPDF
83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
83 FR 15176 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc.PDF
83 FR 15237 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
83 FR 15238 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
83 FR 15065 - Paternity Claims and Adoption Proceedings Involving Members and Former Members of the Armed ForcesPDF
83 FR 15126 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15065 - Special Local Regulation; Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MIPDF
83 FR 15168 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0101PDF
83 FR 15167 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0081PDF
83 FR 15159 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary SupplementsPDF
83 FR 15089 - Aker BioMarine; Filing of Color Additive PetitionPDF
83 FR 15153 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza PandemicPDF
83 FR 15158 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling Natural Rubber Latex CondomsPDF
83 FR 15154 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use DevicesPDF
83 FR 15161 - Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials; Draft Guidance; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 15157 - Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 15125 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15133 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15148 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15152 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget ApprovalsPDF
83 FR 15147 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830PDF
83 FR 15189 - 60-day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien RegistrationPDF
83 FR 15191 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
83 FR 15194 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
83 FR 15238 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Monthly Certification of On-The-Job and Apprenticeship TrainingPDF
83 FR 15141 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications Public NoticePDF
83 FR 15139 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 15140 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 15142 - Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation; Wisconsin Public Service CorporationPDF
83 FR 15139 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project; Navajo Tribal Utility AuthorityPDF
83 FR 15170 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Did You Feel It? Earthquake QuestionnairePDF
83 FR 15117 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study AreaPDF
83 FR 15175 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc.PDF
83 FR 15143 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15146 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15144 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 15171 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Documented Petitions for Federal Acknowledgment as an Indian TribePDF
83 FR 15172 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Reindeer in AlaskaPDF
83 FR 15172 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report FormPDF
83 FR 15174 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Data Elements for Student Enrollment in Bureau-Funded SchoolsPDF
83 FR 15173 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas MiningPDF
83 FR 15179 - Evaluating Deviations and Reporting Defects and NoncompliancePDF
83 FR 15165 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 15166 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 15166 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 15187 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Charged in Connection With the Filing of Supplemental Listing Applications in Connection With the Issuance of Convertible SecuritiesPDF
83 FR 15181 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt BZX Rule 14.11(k) To Permit the Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares and To List and Trade Shares of the ClearBridge Appreciation ETF, ClearBridge Large Cap ETF, ClearBridge MidCap Growth ETF, ClearBridge Select ETF, and ClearBridge All Cap Value ETFPDF
83 FR 15181 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Trade Acceptance and Novation RulesPDF
83 FR 15099 - Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MDPDF
83 FR 15095 - Eliminating Unnecessary RegulationsPDF
83 FR 15050 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns; Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis, MO; and Macon, MOPDF
83 FR 15055 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal MinesPDF
83 FR 15068 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the BreastPDF
83 FR 15082 - National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary ProvisionsPDF
83 FR 15127 - General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan and 44th Biennial ConferencePDF
83 FR 15052 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 15051 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 15019 - Real Estate AppraisalsPDF
83 FR 15043 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited AirplanesPDF
83 FR 15036 - Airworthiness Directives; XtremeAir GmbH AirplanesPDF
83 FR 15048 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 15240 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Essential Fish HabitatPDF
83 FR 15045 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 15038 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
83 FR 15041 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 15075 - Updating the Code of Federal RegulationsPDF
83 FR 15101 - HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR)PDF

Issue

83 68 Monday, April 9, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15125-15127 2018-07149 2018-07160 2018-07211
Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau PROPOSED RULES Viticultural Areas: Upper Hudson; Establishment, 15091-15095 2018-07210 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions, 15082-15089 2018-07076 NOTICES Meetings: General Conference Committee of National Poultry Improvement Plan and 44th Biennial Conference, 15127 2018-07075 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes Under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: UHD Alliance, Inc., 15175 2018-07129 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Requests for Information: Bureau Financial Education Programs, 15131-15133 2018-07222 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ, 15067-15068 2018-07215 Special Local Regulations: Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI, 15065-15067 2018-07159 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD, 15096-15098 2018-07196 Choptank River, Cambridge, MD, 15099-15101 2018-07109 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15167-15168 2018-07157 2018-07158 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency RULES Real Estate Appraisals, 15019-15036 2018-06960 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Paternity Claims and Adoption Proceedings Involving Members and Former Members of Armed Forces, 15065 2018-07161 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15133 2018-07148 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc., 15176 2018-07165 United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 15175-15176 2018-07167 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, 15133-15136 2018-07212 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Applications To Export Electric Energy: Emera Energy Services Subsidiaries, 15138-15139 2018-07201 Shell Energy North America (US), LP, 15136-15138 2018-07198 2018-07199 Meetings: Supercritical CO2 Oxy-combustion Technology Group, 15137 2018-07197
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference; Correcting Amendments, 15074-15075 2018-07216 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 15048-15050 2018-06946 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 15045-15048 2018-06712 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 15038-15041 2018-06711 Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes, 15043-15045 2018-06950 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 15041-15043 2018-06710 XtremeAir GmbH Airplanes, 15036-15038 2018-06949 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis, MO; and Macon, MO; Correction, 15050 2018-07100 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 15051-15054 2018-06991 2018-06993 NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Criteria and Application Procedures for Military Airport Program, 15191-15194 2018-07228 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries, 15191, 15194-15195 2018-07141 2018-07142 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: Southern Utah University; Correction, 15195 2018-07169 Wittman Regional Airport, 15194 2018-07171 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Real Estate Appraisals, 15019-15036 2018-06960 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Authorizations for Continued Project Operation: Wisconsin Public Service Corp., 15142-15143 2018-07135 2018-07136 Combined Filings, 15139-15141 2018-07137 2018-07138 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Co., Navajo Tribal Utility Authority; Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project, 15139 2018-07134 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 15141-15142 2018-07139 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers, 15222-15223 2018-07180 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: National Tank Truck Carriers and Massachusetts Motor Transportation Assn., 15221-15222 2018-07189 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 15198-15200 2018-07204 Diabetes Mellitus, 15202-15213, 15219-15220, 15225-15232 2018-07181 2018-07183 2018-07203 2018-07206 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 15213 2018-07190 Hearing, 15201-15202 2018-07202 Vision, 15195-15198, 15214-15219, 15223-15225, 15232-15233 2018-07182 2018-07184 2018-07185 2018-07186 2018-07187 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Real Estate Appraisals, 15019-15036 2018-06960 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 15143 2018-07194 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 15143 2018-07195 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15143-15147 2018-07126 2018-07127 2018-07128 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Color Additive Petitions: Aker BioMarine, 15089-15090 2018-07155 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 15148-15153 2018-07146 2018-07147 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, 15147-15148 2018-07145 Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling Natural Rubber Latex Condoms, 15158-15159 2018-07153 Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic, 15153-15154 2018-07154 Petition To Request Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements, 15159-15161 2018-07156 Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices, 15154-15155 2018-07152 Guidance: Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs, 15157-15158 2018-07150 Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials, 15161-15162 2018-07151 International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances: Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Cannabis Plant and Resin; Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis; Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; Stereoisomers of Tetrahydrocannabinol; Cannabidiol, 15155-15157 2018-07225 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Did You Feel It? Earthquake Questionnaire, 15170-15171 2018-07133 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, 15165 2018-07217
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NURSE Corps Loan Repayment Program, 15162-15164 2018-07176 Telehealth Resource Center Performance Measurement Tool, 15164-15165 2018-07175 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Acquisition Regulations, 15101-15117 2018-06362 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee, 15168-15170 2018-07219 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report Form, 15172 2018-07123 Data Elements for Student Enrollment in Bureau-Funded Schools, 15174-15175 2018-07122 Documented Petitions for Federal Acknowledgment as Indian Tribe, 15171-15172 2018-07125 Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining, 15173-15174 2018-07121 Reindeer in Alaska, 15172-15173 2018-07124 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings: Art Advisory Panel, 15236 2018-07174 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 15237 2018-07166 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 15238 2018-07163 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 15237 2018-07173 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 15237-15238 2018-07170 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 15236-15237 2018-07168 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 15237 2018-07164 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 15236 2018-07172 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China, 15129 2018-07192 Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia, 15129-15131 2018-07193 Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand, 15127-15129 2018-07191 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration RULES Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, 15055-15065 2018-07084 Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines: Announcement of Public Stakeholder Meetings, 15055 2018-07083 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 15176-15177 2018-07178 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: General Motors, LLC, 15233-15236 2018-07188 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Human Genome Research Institute, 15166-15167 2018-07114 2018-07115 National Institute of Nursing Research, 15165-15166 2018-07117 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 15166 2018-07116 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Essential Fish Habitat, 15240-15285 2018-06760 PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Navy Training and Testing Activities in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area, 15117-15124 2018-07131 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 15177 2018-07208 Proposal Review Panel for International Science and Engineering, 15177-15178 2018-07209 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15177 2018-07329 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light Water Reactors, 15178-15179 2018-07214 Evaluating Deviations and Reporting Defects and Noncompliance, 15179-15180 2018-07118 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15179 2018-07372 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 15180-15181 2018-07120 2018-07200 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of April 4, 2018), 15287-15289 2018-07418 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 15181 2018-07112 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 15187-15189 2018-07113 Options Clearing Corp., 15181-15187 2018-07111 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, 15189 2018-07144 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board RULES Updating the Code of Federal Regulations, 15075-15081 2018-06657 NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Union Pacific Railroad Co., McLennan County, TX, 15189-15190 2018-07226 Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Union Pacific Railroad Co.; McLennan County, TX, 15190-15191 2018-07223 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States RULES Removal of Rules Concerning Classification and Safeguarding of National Security Information, 15054-15055 2018-07220 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

PROPOSED RULES Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations, 15095-15096 2018-07102
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the Breast, 15068-15074 2018-07081 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Monthly Certification of On-the-Job and Apprenticeship Training, 15238 2018-07140 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 15240-15285 2018-06760 Part III Presidential Documents, 15287-15289 2018-07418 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 68 Monday, April 9, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 34 [Docket No. OCC-2017-0011] RIN 1557-AE18 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 225 [Docket No. R-1568; RIN 7100 AE-81] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 323 RIN 3064 AE-56 Real Estate Appraisals AGENCY:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The OCC, Board, and FDIC (collectively, the agencies) are adopting a final rule to amend the agencies' regulations requiring appraisals of real estate for certain transactions. The final rule increases the threshold level at or below which appraisals are not required for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $500,000. The final rule defines commercial real estate transaction as a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property. It excludes all transactions secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, and thus construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property are excluded. For commercial real estate transactions exempted from the appraisal requirement as a result of the revised threshold, regulated institutions must obtain an evaluation of the real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on April 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC: G. Kevin Lawton, Appraiser (Real Estate Specialist), (202) 649-7152, Mitchell E. Plave, Special Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or Joanne Phillips, Attorney, Bank Activities and Structure Division, (202) 649-5500, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY users may contact (202) 649-5597.

Board: Constance Horsley, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 452-5239, or Carmen Holly, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 973-6122, Division of Supervision and Regulation; or Gillian Burgess, Senior Counsel, (202) 736-5564, Matthew Suntag, Counsel, (202) 452-3694, or Kirin Walsh, Attorney, (202) 452-3058, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.

FDIC: Beverlea S. Gardner, Senior Examination Specialist, Division of Risk Management and Supervision, (202) 898-3640, Mark Mellon, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3884, or Lauren Whitaker, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898-3872, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429. For the hearing impaired only, TDD users may contact (202) 925-4618.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Summary of the Proposed Rule

In July 2017, the agencies invited comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal or proposed rule) 1 that would amend the agencies' appraisal regulations promulgated pursuant to Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI).2 Specifically, the proposal would have increased the monetary threshold at or below which financial institutions that are regulated by the agencies (regulated institutions) would not be required to obtain appraisals in connection with commercial real estate transactions (commercial real estate appraisal threshold) from $250,000 to $400,000. The proposal followed the completion in early 2017 of the regulatory review process required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA).3 During the EGRPRA process, the agencies received numerous comments related to the Title XI appraisal regulations, including recommendations to increase the thresholds at or below which transactions are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirements. Among other proposals developed through the EGRPRA process, the agencies recommended increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $400,000.4

1 82 FR 35478 (July 31, 2017).

2 12 U.S.C. 3331 et seq.

3 Public Law 104-208, Div. A, Title II, section 2222, 110 Stat. 3009-414, (1996) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 3311).

4See FFIEC, Joint Report to Congress: Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, (March 2017), (EGRPRA Report), available at https://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/2017_FFIEC_EGRPRA_Joint-Report_to_Congress.pdf.

Title XI directs each federal financial institutions regulatory agency 5 to publish appraisal regulations for federally related transactions within its jurisdiction. The purpose of Title XI is to protect federal financial and public policy interests 6 in real estate-related transactions by requiring that real estate appraisals used in connection with federally related transactions (Title XI appraisals) be performed in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated, and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.7

5 “Federal financial institutions regulatory agency” means the Board, the FDIC, the OCC, the National Credit Union Association (NCUA), and, formerly, the Office of Thrift Supervision. 12 U.S.C. 3350(6).

6 These interests include those stemming from the federal government's roles as regulator and deposit insurer of financial institutions that engage in real estate lending and investment, guarantor or lender on mortgage loans, and as a direct party in real estate-related financial transactions. These federal financial and public policy interests have been described in predecessor legislation and accompanying Congressional reports. See Real Estate Appraisal Reform Act of 1988, H.R. Rep. No. 100-1001, pt. 1, at 19 (1988); 133 Cong. Rec. 33047-33048 (1987).

7 12 U.S.C. 3331.

Title XI directs the agencies to prescribe appropriate standards for Title XI appraisals under the agencies' respective jurisdictions,8 including, at a minimum, that appraisals be: (1) Performed in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP); 9 (2) written appraisals, as defined by the statute, by licensed or certified appraisers; 10 and (3) subject to appropriate review for compliance with USPAP. All federally related transactions must have Title XI appraisals.

8 12 U.S.C. 3339. The agencies' Title XI appraisal regulations apply to transactions entered into by the agencies or by institutions regulated by the agencies that are depository institutions or bank holding companies or subsidiaries of depository institutions or bank holding companies. See OCC: 12 CFR 34, subpart C; Board: 12 CFR 225.61(b); 12 CFR part 208, subpart E; and FDIC: 12 CFR part 323.

9 USPAP is written and interpreted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. USPAP contains generally recognized ethical and performance standards for the appraisal profession in the United States, including real estate, personal property, and business appraisals. See http://www.appraisalfoundation.org/imis/TAF/Standards/Appraisal_Standards/Uniform_Standards_of_Professional_Appraisal_Practice/TAF/USPAP.aspx?hkey=a6420a67-dbfa-41b3-9878-fac35923d2af.

10 Title XI defines “written appraisal” as “a written statement used in connection with a federally related transaction that is independently and impartially prepared by a licensed or certified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by presentation and analysis of relevant market information. 12 U.S.C. 3350(10).

Title XI defines a “federally related transaction” as a real estate-related financial transaction that is regulated or engaged in by a federal financial institutions regulatory agency and requires the services of an appraiser.11 A real estate-related financial transaction is defined as any transaction that involves: (i) The sale, lease, purchase, investment in or exchange of real property, including interests in property, or financing thereof; (ii) the refinancing of real property or interests in real property; and (iii) the use of real property or interests in real property as security for a loan or investment, including mortgage-backed securities.12

11 12 U.S.C. 3350(4).

12 12 U.S.C. 3350(5).

The agencies have authority to determine those real estate-related financial transactions that do not require the services of a state certified or state licensed appraiser and are therefore exempt from the appraisal requirements of Title XI. These real estate-related financial transactions are not federally related transactions under the statutory or regulatory definitions, because they do not require the services of an appraiser.13

13See 59 FR 29482 (June 7, 1994).

The agencies have exempted several categories of real estate-related financial transactions from the Title XI appraisal requirements.14 The agencies have determined that these categories of transactions do not require appraisals by state certified or state licensed appraisers in order to protect federal financial and public policy interests or to satisfy principles of safe and sound banking.

14See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(a); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(a); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(a).

In 1992, Congress amended Title XI, expressly authorizing the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which an appraisal by a state certified or state licensed appraiser is not required in connection with federally related transactions if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.15 As noted above, transactions at or below the threshold level are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirements and thus are not federally related transactions.

15 Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, section 954, 106 Stat. 3894 (amending 12 U.S.C. 3341).

Under the current thresholds, established in 1994,16 all real estate-related financial transactions with a transaction value 17 of $250,000 or less, as well as certain real estate-secured business loans (qualifying business loans or QBLs) with a transaction value of $1 million or less, do not require Title XI appraisals.18 QBLs are business loans 19 that are real estate-related financial transactions and that are not dependent on the sale of, or rental income derived from, real estate as the primary source of repayment.20

16See 59 FR at 29482. The NCUA has promulgated similar rules with similar thresholds. See 60 FR 51889 (October 4, 1995) and 66 FR 58656 (November 23, 2001).

17 For loans and extensions of credit, the transaction value is the amount of the loan or extension of credit. For sales, leases, purchases, investments in or exchanges of real property, the transaction value is the market value of the real property. For the pooling of loans or interests in real property for resale or purchase, the transaction value is the amount of each loan or the market value of each real property, respectively. See OCC: 12 CFR 34.42(m); Board: 12 CFR 225.62(m); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.2(m).

18See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(a)(1) and (5); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(a)(1) and (5); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(a)(1) and (5).

19 The Title XI appraisal regulations define “business loan” to mean “a loan or extension of credit to any corporation, general or limited partnership, business trust, joint venture, pool, syndicate, sole proprietorship, or other business entity.” OCC: 12 CFR 34.42(d); Board: 12 CFR 225.62(d); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.2(d).

20See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(a)(5); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(a)(5); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(a)(5).

For real estate-related financial transactions that are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirement because they are at or below the applicable thresholds or qualify for the exemption for certain existing extensions of credit,21 the Title XI appraisal regulations require regulated institutions to obtain an evaluation of the real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.22 An evaluation should contain sufficient information and analysis to support the financial institution's decision to engage in the transaction.23

21 Transactions that involve an existing extension of credit at the lending institution are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirements, but are required to have evaluations, provided that there has been no obvious and material change in market conditions or physical aspects of the property that threatens the adequacy of the institution's real estate collateral protection after the transaction, even with the advancement of new monies; or there is no advancement of new monies, other than funds necessary to cover reasonable closing costs. See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(a)(7) and (b); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(a)(7) and (b); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(a)(7) and (b).

22See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(b); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(b); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(b).

23 Evaluations are not required to be performed in accordance with USPAP or by state certified or state licensed appraisers. The agencies have provided supervisory guidance for conducting evaluations in a safe and sound manner in the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines (Guidelines) and the Interagency Advisory on the Use of Evaluations in Real Estate-Related Financial Transactions (Evaluations Advisory, and together with the Guidelines, Evaluation Guidance). See, 75 FR 77450 (December 10, 2010); OCC Bulletin 2016-8 (March 4, 2016); Board SR Letter 16-5 (March 4, 2016); and Supervisory Expectations for Evaluations, FDIC FIL-16-2016 (March 4, 2016).

The agencies proposed to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000. The proposal would have defined commercial real estate transaction to include all real estate-related financial transactions, except for those secured by a 1-to-4 family residential property,24 but including loans that finance the construction of 1-to-4 family properties and that do not include permanent financing.25 Under the proposal, regulated institutions would have been required to obtain evaluations consistent with safe and sound banking practices in connection with commercial real estate transactions at or below the proposed $400,000 threshold. The agencies did not propose increasing the thresholds for other types of real estate-related financial transactions, but solicited comment on the appropriateness of raising the threshold for residential real estate transactions and QBLs.

24 A 1-to-4 family residential property is a property containing one, two, three, or four individual dwelling units, including manufactured homes permanently affixed to the underlying land (when deemed to be real property under state law). See OCC: 12 CFR part 34 subpart D, Appendix A; Board: 12 CFR 208, Appendix C; and FDIC: 12 CFR part 365, subpart A, Appendix A.

25 The second part of the definition was intended to clarify, not be an exception to, the first part.

The comment period closed on September 29, 2017. The agencies collectively received over 200 comments from appraisers, appraiser trade organizations, financial institutions, financial institutions trade organizations, and individuals.

As noted in the proposal, increases in commercial property values over time have required regulated institutions to obtain Title XI appraisals for a larger proportion of commercial real estate transactions than in 1994 when the current $250,000 threshold was established. This increase in the number of appraisals required may have contributed to increased burden for regulated institutions in terms of time and cost. The proposal was intended to reduce regulatory burden consistent with federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions. Based on supervisory experience and available data, the agencies published the proposal to accomplish these goals without posing a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.

II. Revisions to the Title XI Appraisal Regulations Overview of Changes

After carefully considering the comments and conducting further analysis, the agencies are adopting a final rule that increases the commercial real estate appraisal threshold with three modifications from the proposal. First, the agencies have decided to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000 rather than $400,000 as proposed. Second, the final rule also makes a conforming change to the section requiring state certified appraisers to be used for federally related transactions that are commercial real estate transactions above the increased threshold.

Third, the final rule also reflects a change to the proposed definition of commercial real estate transaction, which no longer includes construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, regardless of whether the loan is for initial construction only or includes permanent financing. Thus, under the final rule, a loan that is secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, including a loan for construction, will remain subject to the $250,000 threshold.26 The agencies made this change in the final rule after consideration of the comments, which suggested that including 1-to-4 family constructions loans that do not include permanent financing in the definition, but excluding those that do not, would not significantly reduce burden.

26 Residential construction loans secured by more than one 1-to-4 family residential property will be considered commercial real estate transactions subject to the higher threshold.

These changes are discussed in more detail below, in the order in which they appear in the rule. As described in more detail below, the effective date for the rule will be the date of its publication in the Federal Register. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act),27 Congress amended the threshold provision to require “concurrence from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that such threshold level provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-4 unit single-family residences.” 28 The agencies have received concurrence from the CFPB that the commercial real estate appraisal threshold being adopted provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-4 unit single family residential properties.

27 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat.1376.

28 Dodd-Frank Act, § 1473, 124 Stat. 2190 (amending 12 U.S.C. 3341(b)).

Comments on the Proposed Increase to the Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Threshold

The agencies received a range of comments regarding the proposal to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold. Comments from financial institutions and financial institutions trade associations generally supported an increase, although many requested a higher increase than proposed. Comments from appraisers and appraiser-related trade associations generally opposed an increase.

Commenters supporting a threshold increase stated that an increase would be appropriate, given the increases in real estate values since the current threshold was established, the cost and time savings to lenders and borrowers the higher threshold would provide, and the burden relief it would provide to financial institutions in rural and other areas where there are reported shortages of state licensed or state certified appraisers, which may have caused transaction delays and increased lending costs. Commenters supporting a threshold increase also asserted that it would provide burden relief for financial institutions, without sacrificing sound risk management principles or safe and sound banking practices, and that an increase would help justify the cost and return of originating smaller and less complex commercial real estate loans. Several commenters asserted the higher threshold could be implemented easily and would result in burden relief, for example, by reducing loan costs and minimizing delays in loan processing. One commenter asserted that the proposed increase would support local and regional economies, and another represented that it would assist small builders. This same commenter asserted that reducing burden on lenders would facilitate financing to builders generally, as they rely heavily on commercial banks for financing.

Commenters opposing an increase to the commercial real estate appraisal threshold asserted that an increase would elevate risks to financial institutions, the banking system, borrowers, small business owners, commercial property owners, and taxpayers. Several of these commenters asserted that the increased risk would not be justified by burden relief. Other commenters asserted that the proposed increase contradicts publicly stated concerns of the agencies relating to the state of the commercial real estate market and the quality of evaluation reports. Another commenter asserted that the inclusion of construction loans extended to consumers as commercial real estate transactions would magnify risk, as the commenter viewed such loans as particularly risky. One commenter expressed concern that the proposal would lead to increased use of automated valuations, which the commenter asserted are not adequate substitutes for appraisals, or would eliminate collateral verifications altogether.

Some commenters opposing the threshold raised issues unrelated to risk. A few asserted that appraisals are relatively inexpensive and, thus, that the proposed increase would not materially reduce costs. One commenter expressed the view that an increase in the commercial real estate appraisal threshold would be contrary to consumer protection objectives. Another commenter asserted that the agencies are required by Title XI to receive concurrence from the CFPB for a threshold change. In support of its opposition to the proposal, a commenter cited a 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, contending that the report found no support for raising the threshold.29 Another commenter asserted that the proposed threshold increase is contrary to Congressional intent and also asserted that most commenters during the EGRPRA process were against a threshold increase.

29See GAO, “Real Estate Appraisals: Appraisal Subcommittee Needs to Improve Monitoring Procedures,” GAO-12-147 (January 2012).

Several commenters rejected assertions that there was an appraiser shortage warranting regulatory relief, some asserting that any shortage is caused by appraisers' unwillingness to work for appraisal management companies (AMCs) at the reduced fees being offered to appraisers by AMCs. Two commenters questioned the impact of the proposed commercial real estate appraisal threshold on appraiser shortages, one asserting that the number of commercial real estate appraisers has remained relatively steady in recent years and the other asserting that appraiser shortages are primarily related to residential property valuations.

Many commenters opposing the proposal highlighted the benefits that state licensed or state certified appraisers bring to the process of valuing real estate collateral. One of these commenters asserted that appraisers serve a necessary function in real estate lending and expressed concerns that bypassing them to create a more streamlined valuation process could lead to fraud and another real estate crisis. Several commenters highlighted that appraisers are the only unbiased party in the valuation process, in contrast to buyers, agents, lenders, and sellers, who each have an interest in the underlying transactions. One commenter asserted that appraisers have a unique vantage point during the property inspection process to provide lenders with information, in addition to a valuation, that may be critical to the lending decision and help to avoid bad loans and fraud.

Some commenters who were supportive of the proposal also discussed the role of appraisals and appraisers. One of these commenters asserted that appraisals are an integral part of the safety and soundness of the real estate industry, but believed that certain transactions are well served by alternative valuation methods. Some other commenters expressed skepticism about the value of appraisals prepared by independent appraisers. In this regard, one commenter asserted that banks have a better understanding of property values in their communities than appraisers from other areas, while another expressed concern for the reliability of appraisals and whether appraisers' valuations are keeping up with property growth trends. Another commenter expressed concern that appraisers' access to sales contracts can lead to an over-abundance of appraised values at or above the amounts in the contracts.

After carefully considering the comments received, the agencies have decided to increase the commercial real estate appraisal threshold. As discussed in the proposal and further detailed below, increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold will provide regulatory relief for financial institutions by removing the appraisal requirement for a material number of transactions without threatening the safety and soundness of financial institutions.

The agencies are increasing the threshold based on express statutory authority to do so if they determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.30 The agencies have made this safety and soundness determination and a detailed analysis is provided below.

30 12 U.S.C. 3341(b).

Regarding consumer protection concerns, the agencies do not expect that this increase will affect a significant number of consumer transactions. As discussed in more detail below, the final rule is only raising the threshold for commercial real estate transactions. This definition was revised to exclude construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, which would have included construction loans to consumers. As a result of this change, the final rule will not affect a material number of consumer transactions.

Regarding the efficacy of Title XI appraisals, the agencies recognize and are supportive of the role that appraisers play in ensuring a safe and sound real estate lending process, regardless of whether it is in connection with an appraisal or an evaluation. Indeed, the Title XI appraisal regulations, appraiser independence requirements, and the Guidelines emphasize the importance of an independent opinion of collateral value in the process of real estate lending. Through the agencies' supervisory experience with loans that were exempted by the current thresholds and an analysis of loan losses over prior credit cycles for such loans, the agencies have found that evaluations can be an effective valuation method for lower-risk transactions. Even when the transaction amount is at or below the threshold, the Evaluation Guidance encourages regulated institutions to obtain Title XI appraisals when necessary for risk management and to preserve the safety and soundness of the institution.

A. Threshold Increase for Commercial Real Estate Transactions Definition of Commercial Real Estate Transaction

The commercial real estate appraisal threshold increase applies only to transactions defined as “commercial real estate transactions.” Under the proposed definition, a commercial real estate transaction would have included construction loans for 1-to-4 family residential units, but not those providing permanent financing. Accordingly, the proposed definition would have included a loan extended to finance the construction of a consumer's dwelling, but would have excluded construction loans that provide both the initial construction funding and permanent financing.

The agencies received several comments related to the proposed definition. Most comments were not supportive of the proposed treatment of loans to finance the construction of 1-to-4 family residential properties. The one commenter in support of the proposal to include 1-to-4 family construction-only loans in the definition of a commercial real estate transaction asserted that these loans are underwritten similar to commercial real estate transactions.

Some commenters supported excluding all loans to finance the construction of 1-to-4 family residential properties from the definition. Some commenters maintained that it would be safer from a risk perspective to keep construction loans for 1-to-4 family properties in the residential loan category subject to the $250,000 threshold. These commenters asserted that 1-to-4 family construction loans are riskier than conventional residential lending, and maintained that evaluations lack the market analysis needed for a phased construction project. One commenter asserted that there may be limited benefit to including transactions to finance the construction of 1-to-4 family residential properties without permanent financing in the definition of commercial real estate transaction, because an appraisal would be required prior to the permanent financing phase and prudent risk management would dictate obtaining the appraisal prior to initial funding. Another commenter asserted that the implementation of two thresholds for 1-to-4 family residential construction loans would cause confusion and increase regulatory burden on financial institutions.

A few commenters expressed the view that all residential construction loans should be included in the definition and subject to the higher threshold. One commenter noted that an increasing percentage of 1-to-4 family properties are rental properties and that the proposed definition would have excluded a class of rent-dependent real estate that should be classified as commercial real estate. Another commenter recommended that “construction-to-permanent” loans be included in the definition of commercial real estate transaction to increase the financing available for new home construction, indicating that strict underwriting and active engagement among the bank, home builder, and home buyer alleviate risks for these loans. This commenter supported subjecting all construction loans to the same treatment, and asserted that doing so would reduce regulatory burden, provide consistency, and allow for more efficient processes. Another commenter indicated that including all 1-to-4 family construction loans in the definition would avoid creating additional complications by distinguishing such loans into two different classes.

After carefully considering the comments, the agencies have adopted a definition of commercial real estate transaction that excludes construction loans secured by single 1-to-4 family residential properties. Specifically, the final rule defines commercial real estate transaction as a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property. This definition eliminates the distinction between construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property that only finance construction and those that provide both construction and permanent financing. Under the definition in the final rule, neither of these types of loans will be commercial real estate transactions; they will both remain subject to the $250,000 threshold.

This approach addresses the potential confusion from subjecting two classes of construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property to different threshold levels. The revised definition also reflects comments stating that Title XI appraisals are typically conducted for loans for construction of a single 1-to-4 family residential property regardless of whether the loan provides only financing for construction or provides “construction-to-permanent” financing.

The agencies have included the term “single” in the definition to clarify that only transactions secured by one 1-to-4 family residential property are excluded from the definition of “commercial real estate transaction,” whether financing construction or for other purposes. This change addresses potential confusion about whether a loan for the construction of multiple residential properties would meet the definition of “commercial real estate transaction;” a loan that is secured by multiple 1-to-4 family residential properties (for example, a loan to construct multiple properties in a residential neighborhood) would meet the definition of commercial real estate transaction and thus be subject to the higher threshold.

This approach addresses concerns about consumer protection, because a large portion of loans to finance the purchase or initial construction of a single 1-to-4 family residential property that are secured by the property are likely to be extended to consumers who will use the property as their dwelling. By contrast, transactions secured by multiple 1-to-4 family properties are more likely to be transactions to real estate developers or investors in rental properties.

The agencies note that they proposed to treat construction-only loans to consumers as commercial real estate transactions to maintain consistency with agency reporting standards and other regulations and guidance that address construction loans to consumers in other contexts. As in the proposal, the definition being adopted generally aligns with the categories of commercial real estate transactions under the Call Report 31 and other agency guidance,32 with the exception that construction loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family property would not be considered a commercial real estate transaction for purposes of this rule.

31 The following four categories of real-estate secured loans in the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) (FFIEC 031; RCFD 1410) are largely captured in the definition of commercial real estate transaction in the rule: (1) For construction, land development, and other land loans; (2) secured by farmland; (3) secured by residential properties with five or more units; or (4) secured by nonfarm nonresidential properties. As discussed in the proposal, loans that provide construction funding and are secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property are typically reported as “for construction, land development, and other land loans.” The definition applies to corresponding categories of real estate-secured loans in the FFIEC 041 and FFIEC 051 forms of the Call Report.

32 Other interagency guidance includes all construction loans in one category: Real Estate Lending: Interagency Statement on Prudent Risk Management for Commercial Real Estate Lending, OCC Bulletin 2015-51 (December 18, 2015); Statement on Prudent Risk Management for Commercial Real Estate Lending, Board SR Letter 15-17 (December 18, 2015); Statement on Prudent Risk Management for CRE Lending, FDIC FIL-62-2015 (December 18, 2015); Guidance on Prudent Loan Workouts, OCC Bulletin 2009-32 (October 30, 2009); Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts, Board SR Letter 09-07 (October 30, 2009); Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts, FDIC FIL-61-2009 (October 30, 2009); Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices, 71 FR 74580 (December 12, 2006).

The agencies have determined that, on balance, the benefits of adopting this definition of commercial real estate transaction outweigh the drawbacks of the limited inconsistency with other agency issuances relating to commercial real estate lending. Those issuances are for different purposes than the Title XI appraisal regulations, and a different set of considerations is relevant for determining what types of transactions are appropriately exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirement on the basis of transaction size. The definition of commercial real estate transaction in the final rule ensures that loans made to consumers are largely treated consistently, remaining subject to the $250,000 threshold. In addition, by categorizing residential construction loans more clearly, the definition of commercial real estate transaction being adopted can facilitate compliance and enhance the burden reduction benefits of the rule.

Threshold Increase

The agencies proposed increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000. In determining the level of increase, the agencies considered the change in prices for commercial real estate measured by the Federal Reserve Commercial Real Estate Price Index (CRE Index). As described in the proposal, the CRE Index 33 is a direct measure of the changes in commercial real estate prices in the United States. 34 The CRE Index is comprised of data from the CoStar Commercial Repeat Sale Index,35 which uses repeat sale regression analysis of 1.7 million commercial property sales records to compare the change in price for the same property between its most recent and previous sale transactions.36 The data incorporated into this index covers properties across the country and across all price ranges,37 from before 1994 through the present.

33 The Board publishes data on the flow of funds and levels of financial assets and liabilities, by sector and financial instrument; full balance sheets, including net worth, for households and nonprofit organizations, nonfinancial corporate businesses, and nonfinancial noncorporate businesses; Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts; and additional supplemental detail. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial Accounts of the United States, https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/default.htm.

34 The CRE Index is quarterly and not seasonally adjusted. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Series analyzer for FL075035503.Q, https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/fof/SeriesAnalyzer.aspx?s=FL075035503&t=&bc=:FI075035503,FL075035503&suf=Q; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Series Structure, https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/fof/SeriesStructure.aspx.

35 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Series analyzer for FL075035503.Q, https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/fof/SeriesAnalyzer.aspx?s=FL075035503&t=&bc=:FI075035503,FL075035503&suf=Q. Data for years prior to 1996 are comprised of a weighted average of three appraisal-based commercial property series from National Real Estate Investor. Id.

36 CoStar, Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds to Incorporate CoStar Group's Price Indices, CoStar (June 4, 2012), http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Federal-Reserves-Flow-of-Funds-To-Incorporate-CoStar-Groups-Price-Indices/138998.

37See id.

According to the CRE Index, a commercial property that sold for $250,000 as of June 30, 1994, would be expected to sell for approximately $760,000 as of December 2016.38 However, because the price of commercial real estate can be particularly volatile, the agencies proposed to base the increased threshold on the value of the CRE Index when commercial real estate prices were at their lowest point in the most recent downturn, which was $423,000 in March 2010. The agencies invited comment on the proposed level for the commercial real estate appraisal threshold.

38 Since the proposal was published, the CRE Index data points for some of the recent quarters were revised. The numbers in this document reflect the revised CRE Index.

Most of the commenters, who supported increasing the threshold to at least $400,000, supported a higher amount. Some of these commenters also advocated for automatically increasing or reevaluating the level more frequently than every ten years as real estate prices rise and valuation technology changes. Some commenters urged the agencies to conduct further analysis to determine whether the threshold could be increased to a higher amount, but did not specify an amount. Some commenters supported increasing the threshold to $500,000 and suggested that this higher figure would avoid the need for additional changes to the threshold in the near-term due to expected increases in prices. A few commenters supported raising the threshold to $750,000 or higher, claiming the methodology in the proposal was unnecessarily conservative.

Some commenters supported lowering the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to unspecified amounts. Some of those commenters specifically objected to the methodology used by the agencies in the proposal, asserting that adjusting the previous $250,000 level for changes in prices was inappropriate because that level was not itself the result of an inflation adjustment.

After careful consideration of the comments, the agencies have increased the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000, rather than the proposed $400,000 level. The proposed $400,000 threshold was based on the value of the CRE Index in March 2010, when commercial real estate prices were at their lowest point in the most recent downturn. The agencies proposed this conservative approach, due to the volatility of commercial real estate prices over time. The agencies based the beginning point of this analysis on $250,000, because supervisory experience with the $250,000 threshold has confirmed that this threshold level did not threaten the safety and soundness of financial institutions. Based on the CRE Index, a commercial property that sold for $250,000 as of June 30, 1994, would be expected to sell for $423,600 in March 2010, which was the trough of the CRE price cycle. Following this trend, that property would be expected to have a conservative value of approximately $509,000 as of December 2017 (as shown below). Based on the comments received and this further review of the CRE Index, as well as the safety and soundness analysis discussed below, the agencies have decided to finalize the threshold at $500,000.

ER09AP18.006

Regarding the suggestion to raise the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $750,000 or higher, the agencies also note that $750,000 was close to the high point on the volatile CRE Index, as discussed above. Given the volatility in commercial real estate prices, raising the threshold to this amount or higher would raise safety and soundness concerns. Finally, a possible threshold increase to $750,000 or higher may pose too great a risk to smaller institutions, as such transactions may represent a higher percentage of capital for such firms than has historically been permitted under the 1994 threshold.

In the proposal, the agencies also invited comment on how having three threshold levels ($250,000 for all transactions, $400,000 for commercial real estate transactions, and $1 million for QBLs) rather than the two threshold levels applicable to Title XI appraisals ($1 million for QBLs and $250,000 for all other transactions) would affect burden on regulated institutions. Three commenters supported the proposal, noting that having three thresholds would have minimal impact on operations. One commenter opposed having three thresholds, asserting that it will increase complexity, particularly for small community banks with less rigorous compliance operations. The agencies have determined that the burden reduction associated with a higher threshold for commercial real estate transactions outweighs the potential burden of implementing three thresholds.

Safety and Soundness Considerations for Increasing the Threshold for Commercial Real Estate Transactions

Under Title XI, the agencies may set a threshold at or below which a Title XI appraisal is not required if they determine in writing that such a threshold level does not pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.39 The analysis of supervisory experience and available data presented in the proposal indicated that the proposed threshold level of $400,000 for commercial real estate transactions would not have posed a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions. The agencies invited comment on their preliminary finding and the data used. Taking into consideration those comments and updated analysis, discussed below, the agencies determined that the threshold level of $500,000 for commercial real estate transactions does not pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.

39 12 U.S.C. 3341(b).

Multiple financial institutions trade associations, financial institutions, individuals, and home builder and realtor associations supported the agencies' analysis showing that an increase to the appraisal threshold for commercial real estate would not have a significant impact on the safety and soundness of financial institutions. A few commenters noted that appraisals are only one part of the underwriting process, one asserting that loans are primarily underwritten on borrowers' ability to repay, with collateral as a secondary consideration. Another commenter asserted that commercial borrowers tend to be larger entities, with the capital to withstand detrimental financial events and shifts in the market. This commenter also indicated that the proposal would not increase safety and soundness risk, given that the increased threshold would affect a relatively small number of transactions in the commercial real estate lending market.

Some commenters noted that evaluations would be required where appraisals were not obtained, and some asserted that the increased use of evaluations with these less complex loans would not increase risk if prepared with adequate analysis. One of these commenters asserted that evaluations for smaller transactions provide more targeted and precise data than appraisals performed by someone from another area.

The agencies received comments from appraisers, appraiser-related groups and individuals opposing the proposed increase, many of whom asserted that appraisals are key to preserving the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the economy. Several of these commenters claimed that evaluations were not an appropriate substitute for appraisals, some suggesting that they are less reliable and prepared by individuals that are not held to the same standards as appraisers. One commenter asserted that the increase would pose safety and soundness risks because commercial loans are riskier than residential loans. Another commenter suggested that entry-level properties that are lower in price and close to the threshold are more likely to have performance issues compared to more expensive properties. One commenter raised concerns that the rule focused on time and cost savings to financial institutions in selecting an appropriate valuation method, rather than risk.

Several commenters voiced concerns about recent price increases, increasing delinquencies, or volatility in the commercial real estate market, which, some asserted, may be indicative of a market “bubble.” Some commenters suggested that it is the wrong time to relax valuation standards, given their view that past market bubbles have been preceded by loosening of underwriting and appraisal standards, and that poor valuation practices contributed to losses during past financial crises. One of these commenters asserted that there is increasing risk in commercial real estate lending, particularly among smaller community and regional banks, which the commenter believed are less likely to have robust collateral risk management policies, practices and procedures.

Multiple commenters noted a 2015 appraiser trade association survey of appraisal industry professionals, including chief appraisers and appraisal managers at financial institutions, which showed that the majority of those surveyed opposed increasing the current $250,000 threshold and believed that increases to the threshold could increase risk to lenders.

The agencies received a limited number of comments in response to the request for comment on the data sources used for the agencies' safety and soundness analysis from financial institutions, financial institution trade associations and appraiser trade associations. Multiple commenters asserted that the data in the proposal supports the increase in the commercial real estate threshold, and indicated that they did not know of other sources of data that the agencies should consider. A number of commenters asserted that the agencies' analysis was too conservative, that past housing crises do not imply current volatility, and that the data suggest the threshold could be increased further than proposed without threatening safety and soundness of financial institutions. One commenter opposing the proposal suggested that the data used in the agencies' safety and soundness analysis was weak and questioned why the agencies did not provide specific numbers to support the assertion that the data related to charge-offs from 2007-2012 is “no worse than” those from the years 1991-1994, except for marked increases in construction loan charge-offs.40 This commenter also asserted that the agencies' analysis of the CoStar data should have considered that newly exempted loans under the higher threshold would more likely be extended to small businesses, which by nature are more vulnerable to market volatility and the potential for business failure.

40 During the 1991-1994 credit cycle, the net charge-off rate for commercial real estate loans reached a high of about 4.5 percent. During the 2007-2012 credit cycle, net charge-off rates reached a high of about 3.5 percent. These are the numbers the agencies used to support their conclusion that the data related to charge-offs from 2007 to 2012 was no worse than that from the years 1991 to 1994. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco: Aggregate Net Charge-Off Rate Database as derived from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income, FFIEC031 4Q 2016: http://www.frbsf.org/banking/data/aggregate-data/.

Based on their supervisory experiences, the agencies disagree that increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold would increase risks to financial institutions, including smaller institutions. As outlined earlier, the agencies closely examined a variety of data and metrics indicating that the relative risks associated with the new threshold in terms of the scope of covered transactions were similar to those presented by the 1994 threshold. The agencies specifically examined the information from smaller insured depository institutions (IDIs) from Call Reports to assess the concentration risk for institutions and concluded that these risks were similar to those presented for larger IDIs. The agencies also note that smaller IDIs are often better positioned than larger institutions to understand and quantify local real estate market values since they serve a smaller, more defined market area.

Regarding comments concerning evaluations as a valuation method, in the agencies' views, evaluations are an effective valuation method for smaller commercial real estate transactions and other transactions under the thresholds. As provided in the Title XI appraisal regulations, evaluations for each transaction must be consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The Evaluation Guidance provides guidance on appropriate evaluation practices. In adopting the increased threshold for commercial real estate transactions, the agencies note that regulated institutions have the flexibility to choose to obtain a Title XI appraisal when markets are volatile or when an appraisal is warranted for other reasons.41

41 75 FR 77450, 77460.

The agencies have no evidence that increasing the appraisal threshold to $500,000 for commercial real estate transactions will materially increase the risk of loss to financial institutions. Analysis of supervisory experience concerning losses on commercial real estate transactions suggests that faulty valuations of the underlying real estate collateral since 1994 have not been a material cause of losses in connection with transactions at or below $250,000.42 In the last three decades, the banking industry suffered two crises in which poorly underwritten and administered commercial real estate loans were a key feature in elevated levels of loan losses and bank failures. Supervisory experience and an examination of material loss reviews covering those decades suggest that larger acquisition, development, and construction transactions pose greater credit risk, due to the lack of appropriate underwriting and administration of issues unique to larger properties, such as longer construction periods, extended “lease up” periods (the time required to lease a building after construction), and the more complex nature of the construction of such properties.43

42See 82 FR at 35484.

43See id.

In addition to considering the agencies' supervisory experience since 1994, the agencies reviewed how the coverage of transactions exempted by the threshold would change, both in terms of number of transactions and aggregate value, in order to consider the potential impact on safety and soundness of increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000. In the proposal, the agencies used three different metrics to estimate the overall coverage of the existing threshold and the proposed threshold: (1) The number of commercial real estate transactions at or under the threshold as a share of the number of all commercial real estate transactions; (2) the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions at or under the threshold as a share of the total dollar volume of all commercial real estate transactions; and (3) the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions at or under the threshold relative to IDIs' capital and the allowance for loan and lease losses, which act as buffers to absorb losses, as explained below. The agencies examined data reported on the Call Report and data from the CoStar Comps database to estimate the volume of commercial real estate transactions covered by the existing threshold and increased thresholds.

The Call Report data shows that the scope of the exemption in 1994, in terms of the number of transactions impacted, decreased significantly over time, and implies that raising the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000 will not involve a greater number of transactions than when the thresholds were established in 1994.

Due to the manner in which IDIs report information on nonfarm nonresidential (NFNR) loans in the Call Report, this data set does not enable the agencies to calculate the percentage of loans that would fall under any threshold amount between $250,000 and $1 million.44 The percentage of the total dollar volume of loans that fall beneath the $250,000 threshold is now less than one third of what it was when the threshold was established in 1994.45 This is true even for institutions under $1 billion in assets, who are more likely to hold smaller loans. Based in part on this analysis, the agencies conclude that the exposure of financial institutions will remain at acceptable levels with a $500,000 commercial real estate appraisal threshold.

44 As described in the proposal, IDIs annually report information on NFNR loans in the Call Report by three separate size categories: (1) Loans with original amounts of $100,000 or less; (2) loans with original amounts of more than $100,000, but $250,000 or less; and (3) loans with original amounts of more than $250,000, but $1 million or less. They also annually report the dollar amount of all NFNR loans, including those over $1 million. Using this data, the agencies calculated the dollar amount of NFNR loans at or under the current $250,000 threshold as a percentage of the dollar amount of all NFNR loans.

45 In the proposal, the agencies explained that 18 percent of the dollar volume of all NFNR loans reported by IDIs had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less when the current appraisal threshold was established in 1994, but as of the fourth quarter of 2016, approximately 4 percent of the dollar volume of such loans had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less. 82 FR at 35485.

The CoStar Comps database provides sales value data on specific commercial real estate transactions and allows for an analysis of the estimated coverage at any potential threshold level. As described in the proposal, the agencies used this dataset to analyze the impact of increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $400,000, and have recently updated this analysis to evaluate the impact of a $500,000 threshold. An analysis of the CoStar Comps database for the most recent year available suggests that increasing the amount to $500,000 would significantly increase the number of commercial real estate transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements, but the portion of the total dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold would be comparatively minimal.

At the existing $250,000 threshold and the proposed $400,000 threshold, the percentage of commercial properties with loans in the CoStar Comps database that would be exempted from the Title XI appraisal regulations would have been 16.1 percent and 26.3 percent, respectively.46 The $500,000 threshold that the agencies are adopting will increase the percentage of transactions affected by another 5.5 percent, resulting in 31.9 percent of loans in the CoStar database being exempt from the appraisal requirement, or 15.7 percent more transactions than under the $250,000 threshold. The proposed $400,000 threshold would have increased the percentage of exempted transactions by dollar volume from 0.5 percent, under the current threshold, to 1.2 percent. Increasing the threshold to $500,000 would increase the dollar volume by an additional 0.5 percent, so that a total of 1.8 percent of the dollar volume of loans in the CoStar database will be exempt from the appraisal requirement, or 1.3 percent more of the dollar volume than under the $250,000 threshold. Thus, this analysis indicates that the increased threshold will affect a low aggregate dollar volume, but a material number of transactions.

46 Certain percentages shown here differ from the values presented in the proposal because of ongoing refinements to the database and filters used to extract the information. The methodology was further refined to improve its ability to reflect the relevant population of commercial real estate transactions. Also, values presented here may not sum due to rounding.

The agencies have used this analysis and the Call Report analysis to determine that increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000 does not pose a threat to safety and soundness. In reaching this determination, the agencies also considered the fact that evaluations would be required for such transactions. The Guidelines provide regulated institutions with guidance on establishing parameters for ordering Title XI appraisals for transactions that present significant risk, even if those transactions are eligible for evaluations under the regulation.47 Regulated institutions are encouraged to continue using a risk-focused approach when considering whether to order an appraisal for real estate-related financial transactions.

47See Guidelines, Section XI.

B. Use of Evaluations Overview

The Title XI appraisal regulations require regulated institutions to obtain evaluations for three categories of real estate-related financial transactions that the agencies have determined do not require a Title XI appraisal, including commercial and residential real-estate related financial transactions of $250,000 or less and QBLs with a transaction value of $1 million or less.48 Accordingly, the agencies proposed to require that regulated institutions entering into commercial real estate transactions at or below the proposed commercial real estate appraisal threshold obtain evaluations that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices unless the institution chooses to obtain an appraisal for such transactions.49

48See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(a)(1) and (5); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(a)(1) and (5); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(a)(1) and (5).

49 An evaluation is not required when real estate-related financial transactions meet the threshold criteria and also qualify for another exemption from the appraisal requirements where no evaluation is required by the regulation.

The agencies are adopting this aspect of the proposal in the final rule without change.50 An evaluation estimates the market value of real estate, but is not subject to the same requirements as a Title XI appraisal. For example, a Title XI appraisal must be performed by a state certified or state licensed appraiser and must conform to USPAP standards, whereas evaluations are not required to be performed by individuals with specific credentials or to conform to USPAP standards. As noted above, the agencies have issued guidance on the preparation of evaluations.51

50 The agencies are adopting the commercial real estate appraisal threshold at $500,000, which is higher than proposed. Financial institutions will be required to obtain evaluations for commercial real estate transactions with transaction values of $500,000 or less.

51See Evaluation Guidance.

The agencies requested comment on the proposed requirement that regulated institutions obtain evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the proposed commercial real estate appraisal threshold. The agencies also asked related questions concerning whether additional guidance is needed by institutions to support the increased use of evaluations as well as questions concerning burden and costs related to the use of evaluations.

Evaluations Required at or Below the Threshold

Several commenters generally supported the proposal that regulated institutions obtain evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the threshold. Other commenters expressed concern regarding the competency and credentialing of persons performing evaluations, as well as concerns regarding difficulty in locating persons qualified to perform evaluations.52 Some of these commenters also expressed concern over the lack of standards for evaluations and the lack of oversight and regulation for persons performing evaluations. One commenter urged the agencies to increase the qualification requirements for those completing evaluations if the commercial real estate appraisal threshold were increased.

52 A commenter highlighted two sentences in the proposal that appeared to conflict with the requirements of the appraisal regulations. First, the commenter disagreed with the following statement in the proposal: “Unlike appraisals, evaluations may be performed by a lender's own employees and are not required to comply with USPAP.” The agencies agree with the commenter that regulations do not prohibit employees of regulated institutions from preparing appraisals if they are so qualified and independent of the real estate-related financial transaction.

As discussed in the proposal, institutions must obtain evaluations that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The agencies have provided guidance to regulated institutions on evaluations.53 The Guidelines state that evaluations should be performed by persons who are competent and have the relevant experience and knowledge of the market, location, and type of real property being valued. An evaluation is not required to be completed by a state licensed or state certified appraiser, but may be completed by an employee of the regulated institution or by a third party, as addressed in the Evaluations Advisory.54 However, the agencies' final rule does not prohibit regulated institutions from using state licensed or state certified appraisers to prepare evaluations. A Title XI appraisal would satisfy the requirement for an “appropriate evaluation of real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices;” thus, regulated institutions that choose to obtain Title XI appraisals for real estate-related financial transactions that require evaluations are not in violation of the Title XI appraisal regulations.

53See Evaluation Guidance.

54 OCC Bulletin 2016-8 (March 4, 2016); Board SR Letter 16-05 (March 4, 2016); and Supervisory Expectations for Evaluations, FDIC FIL-16-2016 (March 4, 2016).

Evaluation Guidance

The agencies also requested comment on the type of additional guidance, if any, regulated institutions need to support the increased use of evaluations. In response, the agencies received comments indicating concern regarding the clarity of, and the burden produced by, the existing guidance on evaluations. A few commenters requested that the agencies provide additional guidance, such as guidance relating to the adequacy of evaluation products available on the market or examples of acceptable industry practices for evaluations. Some other commenters requested that the agencies revisit and relax the current guidance pertaining to evaluations and ensure examiners accept evaluations when permissible. One commenter expressed the view that a simplification would make the current existing guidance for evaluations less time consuming and complex for lower value transactions. Another commenter suggested there should be no need for a review of internal evaluations where the direct lender did not complete the evaluation.

The Evaluation Guidance provides information to help ensure that evaluations provide a credible estimate of the market value of the property pledged as collateral for the loan. The current Evaluation Guidance provides flexibility to regulated institutions for developing evaluations that are appropriate for the type and risk of the real estate financial transaction and does not prescribe specific valuation approaches or products to use tools in the development of evaluations. Also, in addition to various valuation approaches, the Guidelines discuss the possible use of several analytical methods and technological tools in the development of evaluations, such as automated valuation models and tax assessment values. The agencies will continue to assess the adequacy of agency guidance on evaluations.

Cost and Burden of Evaluations

The agencies invited comment regarding whether the use of evaluations reduces burden and cost as compared to the use of Title XI appraisals. The agencies also invited comment on whether evaluations are currently prepared by in-house staff or outsourced to appraisers or other qualified professionals.

The agencies received several comments indicating that the proposed increase in the commercial real estate appraisal threshold and the increased use of evaluations would provide cost and time savings for consumers and institutions, because evaluations tend to cost less that appraisals and take less time to prepare. One commenter asserted that third-party evaluations are approximately 25 percent of the cost of an appraisal. Another commenter indicated noted that some financial institutions prefer to conduct them in-house to maintain consistency of the product and because of staff knowledge of the marketplace. One commenter asserted that appraiser-developed evaluations are unnecessarily expensive, necessitating evaluations to be conducted in-house. Another commenter indicated that increasing the threshold would provide cost savings for portfolio loans but would not address issues related to secondary market requirements, which are outside the agencies' purview.

On the other hand, some commenters asserted that the agencies had overstated how much the proposal would reduce burden for regulated institutions, and questioned the agencies' methods for estimating the reduction in burden. Some commenters expressed concern regarding the length of time required to review an evaluation. A few commenters suggested that the agencies' cost analysis reflected a lack of precision and absence of detailed research to determine the cost differential of appraisals and evaluations between the current and proposed threshold. This same commenter asserted that evaluations lack the detail of appraisals, and, as a result, lenders are often required to perform additional research in determining whether evaluations are credible, which reduces cost and time savings produced by the proposal. One commenter implied that the limited guidance for performing evaluations creates confusion, which results in added costs. One commenter asserted that it is not true that evaluations contain less detailed information or take less time to review than appraisals.55 Another commenter asserted that, because evaluations provide less detail than appraisals, lenders may be required to do more research to determine whether the value conclusion is credible.

55 Two commenters disagreed with the agencies' use of the term “loan officer” relative to the estimated time for reviewing an appraisal or evaluation, and asserted that the usage of the term could be perceived to imply that originators are permitted to be involved in the appraisal review process, which is contrary to the agencies' appraiser independence requirements. The agencies were using the term “loan officer” in its broadest context, and did not intend to imply that the officer originating the credit may conduct appraisal or evaluation reviews relating to that credit. The use of the term “loan officer” was not intended to change standards established on appraiser independence or any implementing guidance.

The agencies carefully considered these comments in evaluating the rule's impact on the time to obtain and review Title XI appraisals and evaluations. The agencies conclude that there may be less delay in finding appropriate personnel to perform an evaluation than to perform a Title XI appraisal, particularly in rural areas, because evaluations are not required to be prepared by a certified or licensed appraiser. Requiring regulated institutions to procure the services of a state licensed or state certified appraiser to prepare evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the threshold could impose significant additional costs on lenders and borrowers without materially increasing the safety and soundness of the transactions. The agencies' data and analysis reflect that the increase in the commercial real estate appraisal threshold and corresponding increased use of evaluations could result in a cost savings of several hundred dollars for each commercial real estate transaction, as discussed below.

Based on supervisory experience the agencies conclude that regulated institutions generally need less time to review evaluations than Title XI appraisals, because the content of the report can be less comprehensive than an appraisal report. Transactions permitting the use of an evaluation typically have a lower dollar value, often are less complex, or are subsequent to previous transactions for which Title XI appraisals were obtained. Therefore, a consolidated analysis is more likely to be used in an evaluation. The agencies estimate that, on average, the time to review an evaluation for an affected transaction under the final rule will be approximately 30 minutes less than the time to review an appraisal.56

56 The agencies recognize some evaluations take longer to review than some appraisals; yet, on average, evaluations are likely to take less time to review than appraisals. This view is based on supervisory experience as well as discussions with regulated institutions.

In evaluating this rule, the agencies considered the impact of obtaining evaluations instead of Title XI appraisals on regulated institutions and borrowers. As noted in the proposal, based on information from industry participants, the cost of third-party evaluations of commercial real estate generally ranges from $500 to over $1,500, whereas the cost of appraisals of such properties generally ranges from $1,000 to over $3,000. Commercial real estate transactions with transaction values above $250,000, but at or below $500,000, are likely to involve smaller and less complex properties, and appraisals and evaluations on such properties would likely be at the lower end of the cost range. This third-party pricing information suggests a savings of several hundred dollars per transaction affected by the proposal. Comments from financial institutions generally affirmed similar information presented in the proposal.

In considering the aggregate effect of this rule, the agencies considered the number of transactions affected by the increased threshold. As previously discussed, the agencies estimate that the number of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold is expected to increase by approximately 16 percent under the rule. Thus, while the precise number of affected transactions and the precise cost reduction per transaction cannot be determined, the rule is expected to lead to significant cost savings for regulated institutions that engage in commercial real estate lending.

Competitive Disadvantage of Evaluations

The agencies received comments from financial institutions, individuals, and a trade association representing valuation professionals, indicating concern that the proposal would put smaller banks that do not have in-house expertise to prepare evaluations at a competitive disadvantage to larger banks. Commenters asserted that these banks hire outside parties to prepare evaluations and pass the cost along to borrowers, making their loans more expensive than comparable loans at larger financial institutions.

In evaluating the final rule, the agencies considered these concerns. In response, the agencies note that the cost for completing an evaluation would be less than the cost for completing a Title XI appraisal for the same property, which thereby reduces burden. The goal of the agencies with this increase is to provide flexibility to regulated institutions in approaching property valuation. Some institutions may not currently be in a position to take advantage of this flexibility. However, raising the threshold will help those regulated institutions that choose to train in-house staff to perform evaluations and would reduce costs for those institutions that choose to outsource evaluations.

C. State Certified Appraiser Required

As described in the proposal, the current Title XI appraisal regulations require that “[a]ll federally related transactions having a transaction value of $250,000 or more, other than those involving appraisals of 1-to-4 family residential properties, shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.” 57 In order to make this paragraph consistent with the other proposed changes to the appraisal regulations, the agencies proposed to change its wording to introduce the $400,000 threshold and use the term “commercial real estate transaction.” The agencies did not receive any comments on this proposed change.

57 OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(d); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(d)(2); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(d)(2).

Given the change from the proposed rule from a $400,000 threshold to a $500,000 threshold, the final rule makes a corresponding change to this section. The amendment to this provision is a technical change that does not alter any substantive requirement.

III. Effective Date

The agencies proposed to make the final rule, if adopted, effective upon publication in the Federal Register. The agencies reasoned that a delayed effective date was not required by applicable law because the proposal exempted additional transactions from the Title XI appraisal requirements and did not impose any new requirements on regulated institutions.58 The agencies requested comment on whether the proposed effective date was appropriate.

58See 82 FR at 35482.

The agencies received three comments on the proposed effective date. One commenter supported the proposed effective date and did not think it would pose challenges to financial institutions. The other two commenters disagreed with an immediate effective date, asserting that financial institutions required time to adjust policies and procedures to implement the proposed changes. One commenter recommended a six-month to one-year implementation period, while the other suggested an effective date 180 days after the final rule is published.

The agencies have retained the proposed effective date, which is the date of publication in the Federal Register.59 In doing so, the agencies balanced the need for some financial institutions to update policies and procedures to incorporate evaluations for transactions exempted by the revised threshold with the benefit of an immediate effective date, which will enable institutions to benefit from lower costs and regulatory relief upon or shortly after the effective date of the final rule. The agencies note that an effective date immediately upon publication in the Federal Register is the approach used in adopting the 1994 amendments to the Title XI appraisal regulations. The agencies are not aware of any evidence that using an immediate effective date in connection with the 1994 amendments caused a competitive disadvantage or hardship to regulated institutions. The agencies also note that regulated institutions have the discretion to use Title XI appraisals in lieu of evaluations for any exempt transaction.

59 As discussed in Section V.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the 30-day delayed effective date required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is waived pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides a waiver when a substantive rule grants or recognizes an exception or relieves a restriction. Additionally, the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-325, 108 Stat. 2163 (Riegle Act) provides that rules imposing additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. 12 U.S.C. 4802(b). As discussed further in the Section V.D of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the final rule does not impose any new requirements on IDIs, and, as such, the effective date requirement of the Riegle Act is inapplicable.

IV. Other Efforts To Relieve Burden Residential and Qualifying Business Loan Thresholds

The agencies explained in the proposal that they were not proposing any threshold increases for transactions secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property (residential transactions) or QBLs in connection with this rulemaking. The agencies requested comment on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the current appraisal threshold for residential transactions. The agencies also invited comment and supporting data on the appropriateness of raising the current $1 million threshold for QBLs and posed a number of specific questions related to regulated institutions' experiences with QBLs.

Numerous commenters, particularly financial institutions and their trade associations, encouraged the agencies to consider increasing the threshold for residential transactions, though few introduced new factors for the agencies' consideration. Many of these commenters asserted that an increase would produce cost and time savings that would benefit regulated institutions and consumers without threatening the safety and soundness of financial institutions. In support of its position that an increase would not threaten safety and soundness, one of these commenters asserted that there is less risk in the homogenous loan pool of 1-to-4 family residential loans than there is in commercial real estate. One commenter asserted that the consumer benefits of appraisals have been overstated, that appraisals are primarily for the benefit of financial institutions, and that consumers could always order their own appraisals.

Several commenters supporting an increase in the threshold for residential transactions noted that an increase in the threshold would be justified by increases in residential property values since the current threshold was established. Some commenters represented that relief would be particularly beneficial for lending in rural communities that often have shortages in state licensed and state certified appraisers. One of these commenters cited feedback from several state bank supervisory agencies indicating that access to appraisers, particularly for residential transactions, is limited in rural areas within their states and that federal appraisal regulations are causing significant burden. A few commenters noted that the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) waive appraisal requirements for certain residential mortgage loans that they purchase and they expected the GSEs to expand eligibility for such waivers. In this regard, they asserted that increasing the threshold in the appraisal regulations would provide burden relief. One of these commenters asserted that as the GSEs expand their appraisal waiver programs, regulated institutions that hold residential mortgage loans in portfolio will be at a competitive disadvantage if the current threshold in the appraisal regulations is not increased. Another commenter asserted that, even if inconsistent GSE requirements would negate some of the burden reduction, the agencies should raise the residential threshold now if, by doing so, safety and soundness would not be jeopardized. A separate commenter suggested that the agencies should provide a de minimis exemption from appraisal requirements for residential mortgage loans that are retained in portfolio by regulated institutions. This same commenter urged the agencies to consider more regional data in deciding whether to make future changes to the threshold for residential transactions.

Many commenters, particularly appraisers and appraiser trade associations, supported with the agencies' decision not to propose an increase in the threshold for residential transactions. Several commenters pointed to the safety and soundness and consumer protection benefits of obtaining appraisals in connection with residential transactions. Several commenters also asserted that the appraisal regulations already exempt a significant percentage of residential mortgage loans. One commenter suggested that the agencies should not rely on policies of other federal entities, such as the GSEs, in making decisions about the appraisal regulations. Another commenter expressed concern that the potential negative consequences of raising the threshold could be exacerbated by the loosening of appraisal standards by the GSEs for some transactions. Another commenter asserted that increasing the threshold for residential transactions could discourage entrance into the appraisal profession and cause further appraiser shortages.

Regarding an increase to the appraisal threshold for QBLs, the majority of comments received opposed an increase. These commenters, who were appraisers or their trade associations, cautioned against a loosening of standards that could raise safety and soundness concerns. Commenters supporting an increase in the QBL threshold asserted that the value of real estate offered as collateral on a QBL is a secondary consideration, because the primary source of repayment is not the income from or sale of that collateral. Some commenters also supported an increase in the threshold due to limited availability of appraisers in their states. Commenters advocated a range of increases from $1.5 million to $3 million.

Few commenters specifically addressed the agencies' questions regarding unique risks that may be posed by QBLs, data regarding QBLs, and regulated institutions' experiences in applying the current QBL threshold. Regarding risks posed by QBLs, one financial institutions trade association commented that its members consider QBLs to be higher-risk loans. An appraiser trade association that was opposed to an increase asserted that small business loans are riskier than others and that lenders with concentrations in such loans are at greater risk. The commenter also noted that such loans are usually held in portfolio, thus increasing risk. Regarding the agencies' requests for data on QBLs, a commenter expressed surprise that the agencies lack data on QBL concentrations, and asserted this lack of data further supports not increasing the threshold. In response to the agencies' question regarding regulated institutions' experiences in applying the QBL threshold, a commenter asserted that many loan officers are poorly trained in classifying loans as either real estate or business. The commenter recommended that the agencies provide examples of these types of loans. In addition, two commenters asked the agencies to clarify the QBL threshold relative to transactions secured by farmland.

The agencies appreciate the issues raised by the commenters relating to the thresholds for residential transactions and QBLs. As discussed in the proposal, the agencies decided not to propose any change to these thresholds in connection with this rulemaking. Nevertheless, the comments reflect a variety of issues that the agencies would consider if they decide to propose changes to the residential or QBL thresholds in the future.

Regarding the requests for clarification of the QBL threshold, the Title XI appraisal regulations have established a $1 million threshold that is applicable to any business loans that are not dependent on the sale of, or rental income derived from, real estate as the primary source of repayment.60 For example, a loan secured by a farm, which could include a situation where one or more affiliated limited liability companies own the farmland securing the loan, could be treated as a QBL subject to the $1 million threshold, if repayment is primarily from the proceeds from the farm business (e.g., sale of crops and related payments). However, a real estate-related financial transaction secured by farmland whose repayment is primarily from rental income from renting or leasing the farmland to a non-affiliated entity would be subject to the final rule's $500,000 threshold.

60See OCC: 12 CFR 34.43(a)(5); Board: 12 CFR 225.63(a)(5); and FDIC: 12 CFR 323.3(a)(5).

Other Proposals and Clarifications

The agencies received several comments suggesting additional ways the agencies could reduce burden under the Title XI appraisal regulations. One commenter urged the agencies to review the appraisal requirements of other federal agencies and pursue ways to make appraisal requirements across agencies more consistent. The agencies have publically articulated their interest in seeking ways to coordinate appraisal standards across various government agencies that are involved in residential mortgage lending.61 The agencies have begun conducting outreach to government agencies to implement this goal and will continue to consider opportunities to do so.

61See EGRPRA Report at 36; 82 FR at 35482.

Another commenter asserted that the agencies should focus on allowing the use by appraisers of products that streamline the valuation process, instead of exempting additional transactions from the appraisal requirements. Several commenters, including a financial institution and a financial institutions trade association, suggested that certain transactions could be added to the list of exemptions from the appraisal requirements to further reduce regulatory burden without sacrificing safety and soundness. These suggestions included exemptions for transactions secured by real estate outside the United States; loans below a threshold that a bank originates and retains “in-house;” transactions involving mortgage-backed securities and pools of mortgages; and loans made to certain community development organizations. An association of state bank supervisors requested that the agencies release further guidance on the Title XI process for temporary waivers of appraiser certification and licensing requirements and also requested that the education requirements for appraiser qualifications be relaxed. A financial institution suggested establishing an additional threshold of $50,000, below which certain transactions would not require appraisals or evaluations.

These comments concerning additional potential exemptions from the appraisal regulations and additional burden relieving measures are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the agencies appreciate the suggestions for ways to expand burden relief beyond what was proposed.

V. Regulatory Analysis A. Waiver of Delayed Effective Date

This final rule is effective on April 9, 2018. The 30-day delayed effective date required under the APA is waived pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides for waiver when a substantive rule grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. The amendment adopted in this final rule exempts additional transactions from the Title XI appraisal requirements, which has the effect of relieving restrictions. Consequently, the amendment in this final rule meets the requirements for waiver set forth in the APA.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

OCC: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires that, in connection with a rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under the RFA is not required if an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined in regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to include commercial banks and savings institutions, and trust companies, with assets of $550 million or less and $38.5 million or less, respectively) and publishes its certification and a brief explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule.

The OCC currently supervises approximately 956 small entities. Data currently available to the OCC are not sufficient to estimate how many OCC-supervised small entities make commercial real estate loans in amounts that fall between the current and final thresholds. Therefore, we cannot estimate how many small entities may be affected by the increase threshold. However, because the final rule does not contain any new recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements, the final rule will not impose costs on any OCC-supervised institution. Accordingly, the OCC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Board: The Board is providing a regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this final rule. The RFA requires that an agency prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with a final rulemaking that the agency expects will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The commercial real estate appraisal threshold increase applies to certain IDIs and nonbank entities that make loans secured by commercial real estate.62 The SBA establishes size standards that define which entities are small businesses for purposes of the RFA.63 The size standard to be considered a small business is: $550 million or less in assets for banks and other depository institutions; and $38.5 million or less in annual revenues for the majority of non-bank entities that are likely to be subject to the final rule.64 Based on the Board's analysis, and for the reasons discussed below, the final rule may have a significant positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

62 For its RFA analysis, the Board considered all Board-regulated creditors to which the proposed rule would apply.

63 U.S. SBA, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

64 Asset size and annual revenues are calculated according to SBA regulations. See 13 CFR 121 et seq.

The Board requested comment on all aspects of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis it provided in connection with the proposal. The comments received are addressed below.

A. Reasons for the Threshold Increase

In response to comments received in the EGRPRA process and in connection with the proposal, the agencies are increasing the commercial real estate appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $500,000. Because commercial real estate prices have increased since 1994, when the current $250,000 threshold was established, a smaller percentage of commercial real estate transactions are currently exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements than when the threshold was established. This threshold adjustment is intended to reduce the regulatory burden associated with extending credit secured by commercial real estate in a manner that is consistent with the safety and soundness of financial institutions.

B. Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis

As discussed above, the agencies' objective in finalizing this threshold increase is to reduce the regulatory burden associated with extending credit in a safe and sound manner by reducing the number of commercial real estate transactions that are subject to the Title XI appraisal requirements.

Title XI explicitly authorizes the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which a Title XI appraisal is not required if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions and receive concurrence from the CFPB that such threshold level provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-to-4 unit single-family homes.65 Based on available data and supervisory experience, the agencies tailored the size and scope of the threshold increase to ensure that it would not pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions or erode protections for consumers who purchase 1-to-4 unit single-family homes.

65 12 U.S.C. 3341(b).

The Board's final rule applies to state chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System (state member banks), as well as bank holding companies and nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies that engage in lending. There are approximately 601 state member banks and 35 nonbank lenders regulated by the Board that meet the SBA definition of small entities and would be subject to the proposed rule. Data currently available to the Board do not allow for a precise estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the final rule because the number of small entities that will engage in commercial real estate transactions at or below the commercial real estate appraisal threshold is unknown.

C. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

The final rule would reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. For transactions at or below the threshold, regulated institutions will be given the option to obtain an evaluation of the property instead of an appraisal. Evaluations may be performed by a lender's own employees and are not required to comply with USPAP. As discussed in detail in Section II.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the cost of obtaining appraisals and evaluations can vary widely depending on the size and complexity of the property, the party performing the valuation, and market conditions where the property is located. Additionally, the costs of obtaining appraisals and evaluations may be passed on to borrowers. Because of this variation in cost and practice, it is not possible to precisely determine the cost savings that regulated institutions will experience due to the decreased cost of obtaining an evaluation rather than an appraisal. However, based on information available to the Board, it is likely that small entities and borrowers engaging in commercial real estate transactions could experience significant cost reductions.

In addition to costing less to obtain than appraisals, evaluations also require less time to review than appraisals because they contain less detailed information. As discussed further in Section II.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, an evaluation takes approximately 30 minutes less to review than an appraisal. Thus, the agencies believe that the final rule will alleviate approximately 30 minutes of employee time per affected transaction for which the lender obtains an evaluation instead of an appraisal. As discussed above, some commenters provided anecdotal evidence to show that the agencies' estimate of time savings was incorrect. The agencies recognize that certain evaluations may take longer to review than others; however, this variation was taken into account in the agencies' estimate of the average time savings that are expected to occur.

As previously discussed, the Board estimates that the percentage of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold is expected to increase by approximately 16 percent under the final rule. The Board expects this percentage to be higher for small entities, because a higher percentage of their loan portfolios are likely to be made up of small, below-threshold loans than those of larger entities. Thus, while the precise number of transactions that will be affected and the precise cost reduction per transaction cannot be determined, the final rule is expected to have a significant positive economic impact on small entities that engage in commercial real estate lending.

D. Identification of Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Regulations

The Board has not identified any federal statutes or regulations that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives

The agencies considered additional burden-reducing measures, such as increasing the commercial threshold to an amount higher than $500,000 and increasing the residential and business loan thresholds, but did not implement such measures for the safety and soundness and consumer protection reasons discussed in the proposal. For transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements under the commercial real estate appraisal threshold, the final rule requires regulated institutions to get an evaluation if they do not choose to obtain a Title XI appraisal. The agencies believe this requirement is necessary to protect the safety and soundness of financial institutions, which is a legal prerequisite to the establishment of any appraisal threshold. The Board is not aware of any other significant alternatives that would reduce burden on small entities without sacrificing the safety and soundness of financial institutions or consumer protections.

FDIC: The RFA generally requires that, in connection with a rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.66 A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets less than or equal to $550 million.67 For the reasons described below and pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

66 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

67 13 CFR 121.201 (as amended, effective December 2, 2014).

The FDIC supervises 3,675 depository institutions,68 of which 2,950 are defined as small banking entities by the terms of the RFA.69 According to the Call Report 2,950 small entities reported holding some volume of real estate-related financial transactions that meet the final rule's definition of a commercial real estate transaction.70 Therefore, 2,950 small entities could be affected by the final rule.

68 FDIC-supervised institutions are set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1813(q)(2).

69 FDIC Call Report, September 30, 2017.

70 The definition of “commercial real estate transaction” would largely capture the following four categories of loans secured by real estate in the Call Report (FFIEC 031; RCFD 1410), namely loans that are: (1) For construction, land development, and other land loans; (2) secured by farmland; (3) secured by residential properties with five or more units; or (4) secured by NFNR properties. However, loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property would be excluded from the definition. The definition applies to corresponding categories of real estate-secured loans in the FFIEC 041 and FFIEC 051 forms of the Call Report.

The final rule will raise the appraisal threshold for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $500,000. Any commercial real estate transaction with a value in excess of the $500,000 threshold is required to have an appraisal by a state licensed or state certified appraiser. Any commercial real estate transaction at or below the $500,000 threshold requires an evaluation.

To estimate the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions the change could potentially affect, the FDIC used information on the dollar volume and number of loans in the Call Report for small institutions from two categories of loans included in the definition of a commercial real estate transaction. The Call Report data reflect that 3.92 percent of the dollar volume of NFNR loans secured by real estate has an original amount between $1 and $250,000, while 10.19 percent have an original amount between $250,000 and $1 million. The Call Report data also reflect that 7.30 percent of the dollar volume of agricultural loans secured by farmland has an original amount between $1 and $250,000, while 6.05 percent have an original amount between $250,000 and $500,000.71 Assuming that the original amount of NFNR loans secured by real estate and the original amount of agricultural loans secured by farmland are normally distributed, the FDIC estimates that 6.28 and 13.35 percent of loan volume is at or below the $500,000 threshold for these categories, respectively.

71 FDIC Call Report, September 30, 2017.

Therefore, raising the appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $500,000 for commercial real estate transactions could affect an estimated 2.36 to 6.05 percent of the dollar volume of all commercial real estate transactions originated each year for small FDIC-supervised institutions. This estimate assumes that the distribution of loans for the other loan categories within the definition of commercial real estate transactions is similar to those loans secured by NFNR properties or farmland.

The final rule is likely to reduce valuation review costs for covered institutions. The FDIC estimates that it takes a loan officer an average of 40 minutes to review an appraisal to ensure that it meets that standards set forth in Title XI, but 10 minutes to perform a similar review of an evaluation, which does not need to meet the Title XI standards for appraisals. The final rule increases the number of commercial real estate transactions that would require an evaluation by raising the appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $500,000. Assuming that 15 percent of the outstanding balance of commercial real estate transactions for small entities gets renewed or replaced by new originations each year, the FDIC estimates that small entities originate $31.8 billion in new commercial real estate transactions each year. Assuming that 2.36 to 6.05 percent of annual originations represent loans with an origination amount greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000, the FDIC estimates that the proposed rule will affect approximately 2,003 to 5,138 loans per year,72 or 0.68 to 1.74 loans on average for small FDIC-supervised institutions. Therefore, based on an estimated hourly rate, the final rule would reduce loan review costs for small entities by $67,391 to $172,868, on average, each year.73 If lenders opt to not utilize an evaluation and require an appraisal on commercial real estate transaction greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000 any reduction in costs would be smaller.

72 Multiplying $31.8 billion by 2.36 percent then dividing the product by an average loan amount of $375,000 equals 2,003 loans and multiplying $31.8 billion by 6.05 percent then dividing the product by an average loan amount of $375,000 equals 5,138 loans.

73 The FDIC estimates that the average hourly compensation for a loan officer is $67.29 an hour. The hourly compensation estimate is based on published compensation rates for Credit Counselors and Loan Officers ($43.40). The estimate includes the September 2017 75th percentile hourly wage rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for the Depository Credit Intermediation sector. The reported hourly wage rate is grossed up by 155.0 percent to account for non-monetary compensation as reported by the 3rd Quarter 2017 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Data. Based on this estimate, loan review costs would decline between $67,391 (2,003 loans multiplied by 30 minutes and multiplied by $67.29 per hour) and $172,868 (5,138 loans multiplied by 30 minutes and multiplied by $67.29 per hour).

Any associated recordkeeping costs are unlikely to change for small FDIC-supervised entities as the amount of labor required to satisfy documentation requirements for an evaluation or an appraisal is estimated to be the same at about five minutes for either an appraisal or evaluation.

The final rule also is likely to reduce the loan origination costs associated with real estate appraisals for commercial real estate borrowers. The FDIC assumes that these costs are always paid by the borrower for this analysis. Anecdotal information from industry participants indicates that a commercial real estate appraisal costs between $1,000 to over $3,000, or about $2,000 on average, and a commercial real estate evaluation costs between $500 to over $1,500, or about $1,000 on average. Based on the prior assumptions, the FDIC estimates that the final rule will affect approximately 2,003 to 5,138 transactions per year,74 or 0.68 to 1.74 loans on average for small FDIC-supervised institutions. Therefore, the final rule could reduce loan origination costs for borrowers doing business with small entities by $2.0 to $5.1 million on average per year.75

74 Multiplying $31.8 billion by 2.36 percent then dividing the product by an average loan amount of $375,000 equals 2,003 loans and multiplying $31.8 billion by 6.05 percent then dividing the product by an average loan amount of $375,000 equals 5,138 loans.

75 Multiplying 2,003 loans by $1,000 savings equals $2.0 million and multiplying 5,138 loans by $1,000 savings equals $5.1 million.

By lowering valuation costs on commercial real estate transactions greater than $250,000 but less than or equal to $500,000 for small FDIC-supervised institutions, the final rule could marginally increase lending activity. As discussed previously, commenters in the EGRPRA review noted that appraisals can be costly and time consuming. By enabling small FDIC-supervised institutions to utilize evaluations for more commercial real estate transactions, the final rule will reduce transaction costs. The reduction in loan origination fees could marginally increase commercial real estate lending activity for loans with an origination value greater than $250,000 and not more than $500,000.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

Certain provisions of the final rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.76 In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently-valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for the OCC is 1557-0190, the Board is 7100-0250, and the FDIC is 3064-0103, which will be extended, without revision. The agencies have concluded that the final rule does not contain any changes to the current information collections; however, the agencies are revising the methodology for calculating the burden estimates. There were no comments received regarding the PRA.

76 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

The OCC and the FDIC submitted the information collection requirements to OMB in connection with the proposal under section 3507(d) of the PRA 77 and section 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations.78 OMB filed a comment pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.11(c) instructing the agencies to examine public comment in response to the proposal and describe in the supporting statement of its next collection (the final rule) any public comments received regarding the collection as well as why (or why it did not) incorporate the commenter's recommendation and include the draft final rule in its next submission. The OCC and the FDIC have resubmitted the collection to OMB in connection with the final rule. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB.

77 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

78 5 CFR 1320.

Information Collection

Title of Information Collection: Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Real Estate Appraisals and Evaluations.

Frequency of Response: Event generated.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents:

OCC: National banks, federal savings associations.

Board: State member banks (SMBs) and nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies (BHCs).

FDIC: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations, insured state branches of foreign banks.

General Description of Report: For federally related transactions, Title XI requires regulated institutions 79 to obtain appraisals prepared in accordance with USPAP promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Generally, these standards include the methods and techniques used to estimate the market value of a property as well as the requirements for reporting such analysis and a market value conclusion in the appraisal. Regulated institutions are expected to maintain records that demonstrate that appraisals used in their real estate-related lending activities comply with these regulatory requirements. For commercial real estate transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements by the final rule, regulated institutions will still be required to obtain an evaluation to justify the transaction amount. The agencies estimate that the recordkeeping burden associated with evaluations is the same as the recordkeeping burden associated with appraisals for such transactions.

79 National banks, federal savings associations, SMBs and nonbank subsidiaries of BHCs, insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations, and insured state branches of foreign banks.

Current Action: The threshold change in the final rule will result in lenders being able to use evaluations instead of appraisals for certain transactions. It is estimated that the time required to document the review of an appraisal or an evaluation is the same. While the rulemaking described in this final rule will not change the amount of time that institutions spend complying with the Title XI appraisal regulation, the agencies are using a more accurate methodology for calculating the burden of the information collections based on the experience of the agencies. Thus, the PRA burden estimates shown here are different from those previously reported. The agencies are (1) using the average number of loans per institution as the frequency and (2) using 5 minutes as the estimated time per response for the appraisals or evaluations.

PRA Burden Estimates

Estimated average time per response: 5 minutes.

OCC

Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Annual Frequency: 1,488.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 148,800 hours.

Board

Number of Respondents: 828 SMBs; 1,215 nonbank subsidiaries of BHCs.

Annual Frequency: 419; 25.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 28,911 hours; 2,531 hours.

FDIC

Number of Respondents: 3,675.

Annual Frequency: 143.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 43,794 hours.

These collections are available to the public at www.reginfo.gov.

The agencies have an ongoing interest in public comments on its burden estimates. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to:

OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0190, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

Board: Nuha Elmaghrabi, Federal Reserve Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Mail Stop K1-148, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, with copies of such comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0250), Washington, DC 20503.

FDIC: You may submit comments, which should refer to “Real Estate Appraisals, 3064-0103” by any of the following methods:

Agency website: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC website.

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

Email: [email protected] Include “Real Estate Appraisals, 3064-0103” in the subject line of the message.

Mail: Jennifer Jones, Attn: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, MB-3105, Washington, DC 20429.

Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Public Inspection: All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/ including any personal information provided.

Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the PRA Agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to [email protected]

D. Riegle Act

The Riegle Act requires that each of the agencies, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on IDIs, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations.80 In addition, in order to provide an adequate transition period, new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.81

80 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).

81 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).

The final rule reduces burden and does not impose any reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on IDIs. For transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements by the proposed rule (i.e., commercial real estate transactions between $250,000 and $500,000), lenders are required to get an evaluation if they chose not to get an appraisal. However, the agencies do not view the option to obtain an evaluation instead of an appraisal as a new or additional requirement for purposes of the Riegle Act. First, the process of obtaining an evaluation is not new since IDIs already get evaluations for transactions at or below the current $250,000 threshold. Second, for commercial real estate transactions between $250,000 and $500,000, IDIs can continue to get appraisals instead of evaluations. Because the final rule imposes no new requirements on IDIs, the agencies are not required by the Riegle Act to consider the administrative burdens and benefits of the rule or delay its effective date.

Because delaying the effective date of the rule is not required, the agencies are making the threshold increase effective on the first day after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Additionally, although not required by the Riegle Act, the agencies did consider the administrative costs and benefits of the rule while developing the proposal and finalizing the rule. In designing the scope of the threshold increase, the agencies chose to largely align the definition of commercial real estate transaction with industry practice, regulatory guidance, and the categories used in the Call Report in order to reduce the administrative burden of determining which transactions were exempted by the rule. The agencies also considered the cost savings that IDIs would experience by obtaining evaluations instead of appraisals and set the threshold at a level designed to provide significant burden relief without sacrificing safety and soundness. In the proposal, the agencies invited comments on compliance with the Riegle Act, but no such comments were received.

E. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 82 requires the agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The agencies invited comment on how to make the rule easier to understand, but no such comments were received.

82 Public Law 106-102, section 722, 113 Stat. 1338 1471 (1999).

F. OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

The OCC has analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a federal mandate that may 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 (adjusted annually for inflation).

The final rule does not impose new requirements or include new mandates. Therefore, we conclude that the final rule will not result in an expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, in any one year.

List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 34

Appraisal, Appraiser, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.

12 CFR Part 225

Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Capital planning, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Stress testing.

12 CFR Part 323

Banks, banking, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 34

For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the OCC amends part 34 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 34—REAL ESTATE LENDING AND APPRAISALS 1. The authority citation for part 34 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1, 25b, 29, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1701j-3, 1828(o), 3331 et seq., 5101 et seq., and 5412(b)(2)(B), and 15 U.S.C. 1639h.

2. Section 34.42 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e) through (m) as paragraphs (f) through (n), respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 34.42 Definitions.

(e) Commercial real estate transaction means a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property.

3. Section 34.43 is amended by: a. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (a)(11); b. Revising paragraph (a)(12); c. Adding paragraph (a)(13); and d. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 34.43 Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser.

(a) * * *

(12) The OCC determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or

(13) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $500,000 or less.

(b) Evaluations required. For a transaction that does not require the services of a State certified or licensed appraiser under paragraph (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(7), or (a)(13) of this section, the institution shall obtain an appropriate evaluation of real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.

(d) * * *

(2) Commercial real estate transactions of more than $500,000. All federally related transactions that are commercial real estate transactions having a transaction value of more than $500,000 shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.

Federal Reserve Board

12 CFR Part 225

For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board amends part 225 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 225—BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK CONTROL (REGULATION Y) 4. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(l), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805.

5. Section 225.62 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e) through (m) as paragraphs (f) through (n), respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 225.62 Definitions.

(e) Commercial real estate transaction means a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property.

6. Section 225.63 is amended by: a. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (a)(12); b. Revising paragraph (a)(13); c. Adding paragraph (a)(14); d. Revising paragraph (b); and e. Revising paragraph (d)(2).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 225.63 Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser.

(a) * * *

(13) The Board determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or

(14) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $500,000 or less.

(b) Evaluations required. For a transaction that does not require the services of a State certified or licensed appraiser under paragraph (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(7), or (a)(14) of this section, the institution shall obtain an appropriate evaluation of real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.

(d) * * *

(2) Commercial real estate transactions of more than $500,000. All federally related transactions that are commercial real estate transactions having a transaction value of more than $500,000 shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12 CFR Part 323

For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the FDIC amends part 323 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 323—APPRAISALS 7. Revise the authority citation for part 323 to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1818, 1819(a)(Seventh” and “Tenth), 1831p-1 and 3331 et seq.

8. Section 323.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 323.1 Authority, purpose, and scope.

(a) Authority. This subpart is issued under 12 U.S.C. 1818, 1819(a)(Seventh and Tenth), 1831p-1 and title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) (Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, 12 U.S.C. 3331 et seq. (1989)).

9. Section 323.2 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e) through (m) as paragraphs (f) through (n), respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 323.2 Definitions.

(e) Commercial real estate transaction means a real estate-related financial transaction that is not secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property.

10. Section 323.3 is amended by: a. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (a)(11); b. Revising paragraph (a)(12); c. Adding paragraph (a)(13); d. Revising paragraph (b); and e. Revising paragraph (d)(2).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 323.3 Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser.

(a) * * *

(12) The FDIC determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or

(13) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $500,000 or less.

(b) Evaluations required. For a transaction that does not require the services of a State certified or licensed appraiser under paragraph (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(7), or (a)(13) of this section, the institution shall obtain an appropriate evaluation of real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.

(d) * * *

(2) Commercial real estate transactions of more than $500,000. All federally related transactions that are commercial real estate transactions having a transaction value of more than $500,000 shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.

Dated: March 16, 2018. Joseph M. Otting, Comptroller of the Currency.

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2018.

Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC on March 20, 2018.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06960 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0284; Product Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD; Amendment 39-19246; AD 2018-07-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; XtremeAir GmbH Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes equipped with an engine mount part number XA42-7120-151. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the diagonal strut of the engine mount frame. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 30, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 30, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments 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 AD, contact XtremeAir GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, Am Flughafen Cochstedt, D-39444 Hecklingen, Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email: [email protected]; internet: https://www.xtremeair.com. You may view this referenced 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 locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0284.

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-2018-0284; 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 regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket 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:

Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Policy and Innovation Divsion, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes. The MCAI states:

During a scheduled maintenance inspection of an XA42 aeroplane, a crack was detected on a diagonal strut of engine mount frame P/N XA42-7120-151.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack growth and subsequently partial or complete failure of the structural joint, possibly resulting in in-flight detachment of the engine and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane, and/or injury to persons on the ground.

Prompted by this finding, XtremeAir issued the SB to provide inspection instructions.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the affected part and, depending on findings, replacement.

This [EASA] AD is considered interim action and further AD action may follow.

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0284. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

XtremeAir GmbH has issued XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the engine mount for cracks and replacement of the engine mount if necessary. 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 of the AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracking of the engine mount frame could lead to in-flight detachment of the engine and result in loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0284; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $552.50, or $42.50 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $7,040.00 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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 adding the following new AD: 2018-07-15 XtremeAir GmbH: Amendment 39-19246; Docket No. FAA-2018-0284; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-014-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 30, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:

(1) Equipped with an engine mount part number (P/N) XA42-7120-151; and

(2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the diagonal strut of the engine mount frame. We are issuing this AD to detect and address cracking of the engine mount frame, which could lead to detachment of the engine in-flight and result in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD.

(1) Before the next acrobatic flight after April 30, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 50 hours time-in-service after the installation of P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount on the airplane, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 acrobatic flight hours, inspect the engine mount following the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018.

(2) After the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, acrobatic flight hours must be recorded in the maintenance records. For the purpose of this AD, we define acrobatic flight as “flight during which a load factor of 6g is exceeded.”

(3) If a crack is found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the engine mount with a serviceable part following the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018. Replacement of the engine mount does not eliminate the repetitive inspection requirement in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(4) After the effective date of this AD, you may install a new or used P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount on the airplane. The used P/N XA42-7120-151 engine mount must be inspected as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and found free of cracks before installation on the airplane. The repetitive inspection requirement in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD still applies.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(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, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

(h) Special Flight Permit

A special flight permit is allowed for this AD per 14 CFR 39.23 with the following limitations: Acrobatic flights are prohibited.

(i) Related Information

Refer to MCAI, EASA AD No. 2018-0050-E, dated March 2, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0284.

(j) 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) XtremeAir Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-XA42-2018-006, Issue A.00, dated March 2, 2018.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For XtremeAir service information identified in this AD, contact XtremeAir GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, Am Flughafen Cochstedt, D-39444 Hecklingen, Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email: [email protected]; internet: https://www.xtremeair.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. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0284.

(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 Kansas City, Missouri, on March 30, 2018. Pat Mullen, Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-06949 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0908; Product Identifier 2017-NM-103-AD; Amendment 39-19238; AD 2018-07-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) on touchdown. This AD requires an electrical modification of the landing gear sequence logic. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

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

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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-2017-0908.

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-2017-0908; 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 street 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:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.

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 all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2017 (82 FR 49151) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of the collapse of the main landing gear on touchdown. The NPRM proposed to require an electrical modification of the landing gear sequence logic. We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG collapse, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0130, dated July 26, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes; and certain Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:

An incident occurred in January 2016 on a Falcon 20-5 aeroplane where, upon touchdown, one main landing gear (MLG) collapsed, due to a sequence anomaly.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional events of MLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

Prompted by previous similar events, Dassault developed a modification, ensuring that hydraulic pressure of circuit #1 of the landing gear actuators is maintained after the extension sequence is completed. As a result, in the unlikely case of having one of the legs not properly mechanically locked down, the pressure maintained in the landing gear bracing devices will prevent landing gear from collapsing. Dassault published Service Bulletin (SB) F20-676 in 1981 (later revised in 1998) which contains the necessary instructions to modify in-service aeroplanes.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an electrical modification of the landing gear sequence logic.

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-2017-0908.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for 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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998. This service information describes procedures for an electrical modification of the MLG sequence logic to prevent landing gear collapse on touchdown. 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 308 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
    Modification 21 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,785 $912 $2,697 $830,676
    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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-07-07 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19238; Docket No. FAA-2017-0908; Product Identifier 2017-NM-103-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) All Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES D, E, F, and G airplanes.

    (2) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, except serial numbers (S/Ns) 478 and 485.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of the collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) on touchdown. We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG collapse, which could result 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) Modification

    Within 74 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish an electrical modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998.

    (h) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (i) 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 (j)(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 Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0130, dated July 26, 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-2017-0908.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.

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

    (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 this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-676, Revision 1, dated March 4, 1998.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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 Des Moines, Washington, on March 20, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06711 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1176; Product Identifier 2017-NM-123-AD; Amendment 39-19237; AD 2018-07-06] 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 747-8 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the right brake pedals after landing rollout. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) by adding an autobrake system limitation. This AD also requires modifying intercostal webs near a main entry door, which terminates the AFM limitation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 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 90740-5600; 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-2017-1176.

    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-2017-1176; 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 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:

    Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3546; 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 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 80). The NPRM was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the right brake pedals after landing rollout. The NPRM proposed to require revising the AFM by adding an autobrake system limitation. The NPRM also proposed to require modifying intercostal webs near a main entry door, which would terminate the AFM limitation revision. We are issuing this AD to prevent restricted motion of the brake pedals, which can affect stopping performance and directional control of the airplane. This restricted motion can lead to high speed runway excursion or lateral runway excursion.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing stated its support for the NPRM.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment 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:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modifying intercostal webs near main entry door 3 by drilling two drain holes in the station-18 intercostal web at door stop 8 and applying sealant at the fore-aft drain path of the upper main sill web at station 16 near door 3R and door 3L. 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 2 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
  • AFM revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $170 Modification 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 (1) 850 1,700 1 We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide parts cost estimates for the modification specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, 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 for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available 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 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 and associated appliances 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): 2018-07-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19237; Docket No. FAA-2017-1176; Product Identifier 2017-NM-123-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017, except for airplanes having line numbers 1443, 1451, 1453, 1456, 1470, 1472, 1475, 1477, 1480, 1492, 1494, 1497, 1498, 1500, 1503, 1511, 1512, 1513, and 1514.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the brake pedals after landing rollout. We are issuing this AD to prevent restricted motion of the brake pedals, which can affect stopping performance and directional control of the airplane. This restricted motion can lead to high speed runway excursion or lateral runway excursion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating the limitation specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    ER09AP18.000 (h) Terminating Action for AFM Limitation

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017, except where the requirements bulletin specifies applying sealant, the following type of sealant must be used: BMS 5-142, TYPE 2; BMS 5-95; PR-1826; or PR-1828. Doing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the AFM limitation revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The AFM limitation required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed from the AFM after accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:

    Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2525, dated September 6, 2017, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017.

    (i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Ferry Flight Limitations

    Operators who are prohibited from further flight due to the autobrake system being inoperative may perform a one-time non-revenue ferry flight to fly the airplane to a maintenance facility to either fix the autobrake system or incorporate the terminating action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. This ferry flight must be performed without passengers, and with interior modifications to allow heated cabin air to warm the brake control cables and pulleys in the vicinity of door 3L and door 3R. These interior modifications must include, at a minimum, temporarily removing the side panels and insulation immediately aft of door 3L and door 3R.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (l) 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, Seattle 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.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3546; email: [email protected]

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

    (m) 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) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (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 90740-5600; 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 Des Moines, Washington, on March 22, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06710 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0285; Product Identifier 2018-CE-010-AD; Amendment 39-19245; AD 2018-07-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient engagement of the couplings with the flex drive of the rudder trim drive system. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective April 30, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 30, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments 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 AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may view this referenced 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 locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0285.

    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-2018-0285; 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 regulatory 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/26, dated February 28, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:

    This [CAA] AD mandates the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/085 issue 1, dated 8 January 2018. The MSB is issued to prevent disengagement of the rudder and/or elevator trim drive due to possible insufficient engagement of the couplings with the flex drive at fuselage stations 115.34 and 180.85, which could result in an ineffective rudder and/or elevator trim system.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0285. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018. The service information describes procedures for removal of the rudder and elevator drive shaft couplings and replacement with new couplings to ensure proper engagement of the drive ends. 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 of the AD.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because if the rudder and/or elevator trim drive couplings become disconnected and the rudder and elevator trim systems will become inoperable, which increases the workload for the pilot. 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 we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0285; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD 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 AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $400 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $20,020, or $910 per product.

    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

    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 adding the following new AD: 2018-07-14 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-19245; Docket No. FAA-2018-0285; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-010-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 30, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, certificated in any category:

    (1) All serial numbers equipped with modification PAC/XL/0582; and

    (2) serial numbers 193 through 197, 199, 200, and 203.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient engagement of the couplings with the flex drive of the rudder trim drive system. We are issuing this AD to prevent disengagement of the rudder and/or elevator trim drive, which could result in increased workload on the pilot and possible loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 60 days after April 30, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), remove the rudder and elevator drive shaft couplings, part number (P/N) 11-49023-1, and replace with P/N 11-49023-3 at fuselage stations 115.34 and 180.85, ensuring proper engagement of the drive ends. Follow the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (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, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA).

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to the MCAI by the CAA, AD DCA/750XL/26, dated February 28, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0285.

    (i) 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) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/085, Issue 1, dated January 8, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.aerospace.co.nz.

    (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. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0285.

    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on March 30, 2018. Pat Mullen, Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service
    [FR Doc. 2018-06950 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0810; Product Identifier 2017-NM-045-AD; Amendment 39-19240; AD 2018-07-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. This AD requires installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.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-2017-0810.

    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-2017-0810; 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 street 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:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.

    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 Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2017 (82 FR 42953) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. The NPRM proposed to require installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. We are issuing this AD to prevent an electrical short of a bonding jumper wire that may result in in-flight smoke or fire events, as well as failure of avionics equipment, due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A CRJ900 aeroplane reported a smoke in cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. The source of smoke was traced to a burnt heated water supply line behind the #2 Galley. The surrounding insulation was also found burnt.

    The root cause of this electrical fire was an electrical short between an un-insulated bonding jumper and a terminal block carrying 115 volts AC. The circuit resistance was high enough and the circuit breakers that protect the wiring did not trip open.

    Electrical short of a bonding jumper may result in in-flight smoke or fire events as well as failure of avionics equipment due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line. The likelihood of this happening is increased by the removal and installation of the galley or lavatory during maintenance, allowing the bonding jumper to become wedged under the terminal block.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate [the installation of protective sleeves on the galley and lavatory bonding jumper wires in accordance with] Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-25-101 Revision B dated 12 January 2017. * * *

    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-2017-0810.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for 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.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. 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 544 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
  • Install protective sleeves 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 Negligible $850 $462,400
    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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-07-09 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19240; Docket No. FAA-2017-0810; Product Identifier 2017-NM-045-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all certificated models.

    (1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10001 through 10344 inclusive.

    (2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15382 inclusive.

    (3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19044 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent an electrical short of a bonding jumper wire that may result in in-flight smoke or fire events, as well as failure of avionics equipment, due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Protective Sleeve Installation

    (1) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, dated December 17, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision A, dated October 31, 2016, have not been done, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories, in accordance with Part A through Part E, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.

    (2) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, dated December 17, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision A, dated October 31, 2016, have been done, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect, and if required, install protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories, in accordance with Part F of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; fax: 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 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-2017-0810.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.

    (j) 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.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.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 Des Moines, Washington, on March 20, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06712 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0269; Product Identifier 2018-NM-051-AD; Amendment 39-19243; AD 2018-07-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. This AD requires performing repetitive station position pick-off unit (SPPU) calibration tests, and applying the corresponding airplane fault isolation if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating malfunctions of the SPPU and failures of the internal wiring due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors, inducing subsequent icing during flight. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective April 24, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 24, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by May 24, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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-2018-0269.

    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-2018-0269; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 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:

    Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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 2018-0058, dated March 14, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences have been reported by Airbus A350 operators of malfunctions of Station Position Pick-Off Units (SPPU). Investigations indicated that internal wiring failures occurred due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors, inducing subsequent icing during flight.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to hidden sensor signal drift (at flap station 3) which, in combination with an independent failure of a flap down drive disconnect, might lead to in-flight detachment of the outer flap surface, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane, and/or injury to persons on the ground.

    Airbus determined that the SPPU calibration test can highlight all hidden faults, but this test is only scheduled after removal/installation of the equipment. Consequently, to address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the SB [Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018], providing instructions to accomplish the SPPU calibration test at regular intervals.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive SPPU calibration test and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [applying corresponding airplane fault isolation].

    Pending the results of the on-going investigation, this [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim measure and further [EASA] AD action may follow.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0269.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018. The service information describes performing repetitive SPPU calibration tests, and applying the corresponding airplane fault isolation if necessary. 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 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because malfunctions of the SPPU and failures of the internal wiring due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors can induce icing, which under certain conditions, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer flap surface, and consequent damage to the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0269; Product Identifier 2018-NM-051-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD 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 AD.

    Costs of Compliances

    We estimate that this AD affects 6 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
  • SPPU calibration test 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per test cycle $0 $170 per test cycle $1,020 per test cycle

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-07-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-19243; Docket No. FAA-2018-0269; Product Identifier 2018-NM-051-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 24, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating malfunctions of the station position pick-off unit (SPPU) and failures of the internal wiring due to water ingress via certain electrical connectors, inducing subsequent icing during flight. We are issuing this AD to address a hidden sensor signal drift, which, in combination with an independent failure of a flap down drive disconnect, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer flap surface, and possibly result in damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive SPPU Calibration Tests and Corrective Action

    Within 200 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, accomplish a SPPU calibration test in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018. If any fault message appears after accomplishment of the SPPU calibration test, before further flight, apply the corresponding airplane fault isolation and continue with the SPPU calibration test. Repeat the SPPU calibration test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles.

    (h) 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 (i)(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 Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0058, dated March 14, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0269.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.

    (j) 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.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P021, dated February 13, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.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 Des Moines, Washington, on March 27, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06946 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9559; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns; Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis, MO; and Macon, MO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects the final rule published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2018, modifying Class D airspace at Spirit of St. Louis Airport, St. Louis, MO; Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Cape Girardeau, MO, and Spirit of St. Louis Airport; Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Spirit of St. Louis Airport, and Macon-Fower Memorial Airport, Macon, MO. A typographical error was made in the geographic coordinates for the St. Louis Lambert International Runway 30L Localizer listed in the legal description of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for St. Louis, MO.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018.

    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: History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 5707; February 9, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2016-9559 modifying Class D airspace at Spirit of St. Louis Airport, St. Louis, MO; Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Cape Girardeau, MO, and Spirit of St. Louis Airport; Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Spirit of St. Louis Airport, and Macon-Fower Memorial Airport, Macon, MO. A typographical error was made in the geographic coordinates for the St. Louis Lambert International Runway 30L Localizer listed in the legal description of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for St. Louis, MO. This action corrects this error.

    Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of February 9, 2018 (83 FR 5707) FR Doc. 2018-02139, Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Missouri Towns; Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis, MO; and Macon, MO, is corrected as follows:

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    ACE MO E5 St. Louis, MO [Corrected]

    On page 5710, column 2, line 38, remove (lat. 38°45′44″ N, long. 90°22′56″ W) and add in its place (lat. 38°45′19″ N, long. 90°22′56″ W).

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 2, 2018. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07100 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31187; Amdt. No. 3794] 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 April 9, 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 April 9, 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 23, 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 MN Alexandria Chandler Field 8/0189 3/1/18 This NOTAM, published in TL 18-09, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 26-Apr-18 CA Fresno Fresno Yosemite Intl 7/9103 3/8/18 LOC Y RWY 11L, Amdt 2C. 26-Apr-18 AL Courtland Courtland 8/0390 3/16/18 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 2. 26-Apr-18 MN Alexandria Chandler Field 8/0431 3/14/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig. 26-Apr-18 IN Indianapolis Indianapolis Rgnl 8/0900 3/16/18 VOR RWY 34, Amdt 2C. 26-Apr-18 CO Colorado Springs City Of Colorado Springs Muni 8/1731 3/14/18 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35L, Amdt 1A. 26-Apr-18 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 8/1749 3/16/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, Amdt 2D. 26-Apr-18 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 8/1750 3/16/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4R, Amdt 1C. 26-Apr-18 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 8/1752 3/16/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1B. 26-Apr-18 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 8/1753 3/16/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, Amdt 5C. 26-Apr-18 LA Lake Charles Lake Charles Rgnl 8/4569 3/13/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1A. 26-Apr-18 OK Stillwater Stillwater Rgnl 8/4810 3/15/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A. 26-Apr-18 MS Meridian Key Field 8/6080 3/8/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 26A. 26-Apr-18 CA Sacramento Sacramento Intl 8/7363 3/13/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, Amdt 7F. 26-Apr-18 CA Arcata/Eureka California Redwood Coast-Humboldt County 8/7880 3/8/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2. 26-Apr-18 MI Marlette Marlette 8/8447 3/13/18 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 26-Apr-18 AZ Casa Grande Casa Grande Muni 8/9260 3/14/18 VOR RWY 5, Amdt 4D. 26-Apr-18 AZ Casa Grande Casa Grande Muni 8/9263 3/14/18 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 5, Amdt 6F.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06991 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31186; Amdt. No. 3793] 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 April 9, 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 April 9, 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 23, 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 Harrison, AR, Boone County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Kailua/Kona, HI, Ellison Onizuka Kona Intl at Keahole, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17, Orig-B Effective 24 May 2018 Bettles, AK, Bettles, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1 Bettles, AK, Bettles, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1 Bettles, AK, Bettles, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Bettles, AK, Bettles, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 2 Birmingham, AL, Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Harrison, AR, Boone County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A Melbourne, AR, Melbourne Muni-John E Miller Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Morrilton, AR, Petit Jean Park, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Palmdale, CA, Palmdale USAF Plant 42, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, Amdt 10 Palmdale, CA, Palmdale USAF Plant 42, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig Palmdale, CA, Palmdale USAF Plant 42, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig Palmdale, CA, Palmdale USAF Plant 42, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2 Palmdale, CA, Palmdale USAF Plant 42, VOR OR TACAN RWY 25, Amdt 8 Wray, CO, Wray Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2A Yuma, CO, Yuma Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig Yuma, CO, Yuma Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig Yuma, CO, Yuma Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Greenfield, IA, Greenfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1 Greenfield, IA, Greenfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1 Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7A Detroit, MI, Willow Run, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 10B Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, ILS Y RWY 12, Orig-C Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, ILS Z RWY 12, Amdt 12D Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, RNAV (GPS)-D, Amdt 1 Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 12, Amdt 3 Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, RNAV (RNP) RWY 30, Orig-B Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12, Orig-D Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 13 Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, VOR-B, Amdt 7 Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 4B Louisburg, NC, Triangle North Executive, VOR-A, Amdt 2C Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A Rocky Mount, NC, Rocky Mount-Wilson Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 16C Sanford, NC, Raleigh Exec Jetport at Sanford-Lee County, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 3, Orig-A Sanford, NC, Raleigh Exec Jetport at Sanford-Lee County, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 3, Amdt 2A Hartington, NE, Hartington Muni/Bud Becker Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-C Buffalo, NY, Buffalo Niagara Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 5, Amdt 2D Buffalo, NY, Buffalo Niagara Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23, Orig-A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 10A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, Amdt 10A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24R, Amdt 10A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6R, Amdt 1B Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1B Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24L, Amdt 1D Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 6L, Amdt 1D Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 24R, Amdt 2A Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 6L, Orig-B Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 24R, Orig-B Marion, OH, Marion Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A Marion, OH, Marion Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-A Marion, OH, Marion Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 1A Mount Gilead, OH, Morrow County, VOR-A, Amdt 5 Franklin, PA, Venango Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 21, Amdt 6B Franklin, PA, Venango Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1B Franklin, PA, Venango Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1B Franklin, PA, Venango Rgnl, VOR RWY 3, Amdt 5B Greenville, PA, Greenville Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig-A Greenville, PA, Greenville Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2, CANCELED Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 1A Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2A Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 1A Danville, VA, Danville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 4C South Hill, VA, Mecklenburg-Brunswick Rgnl, LOC RWY 1, Amdt 1A Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 12C Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1 Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 13 Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 2 Appleton, WI, Appleton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 18 Appleton, WI, Appleton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1B
    [FR Doc. 2018-06993 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 15 CFR Part 2008 Removal of the Office of the United States Trade Representative Rules Concerning Classification and Safeguarding of National Security Information AGENCY:

    Office of the United States Trade Representative.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule removes part 2008 of the Office of the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) regulations, which established policy and procedure for the classification and safeguarding of national security information by USTR staff. USTR has replaced the rule, which was promulgated in 1979 and is based on a superseded Executive Order, with updated plain language guidance that is available on the USTR website.

    DATES:

    The final rule is effective April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janice Kaye, Monique Ricker or Melissa Keppel, Office of General Counsel, United States Trade Representative, Anacostia Naval Annex, Building 410/Door 123, 250 Murray Lane SW, Washington, DC 20509, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 202-395-3150.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 26, 1979, USTR's predecessor, the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, published a rule to establish policies and procedures for the security classification, downgrading, declassification, and safeguarding on national security information. See 44 FR 55328-331. The rule, codified at 15 CFR part 2008, is based on a superseded Executive Order, and has never been updated. USTR recently issued Classification Guidance based on current legal and policy requirements. The Guidance sets out the policies and procedures for classifying, downgrading, and declassifying national security information and provides for the protection of USTR information and its availability to authorized users. USTR will update the guidance as necessary to reflect changes to the governing Executive Order, currently Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, Classified National Security Information, and implementing rules issued by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) (32 CFR part 2001). The Guidance is available on the USTR website: https://ustr.gov/about-us/reading-room/declassification-program.

    Administrative Procedure and Regulatory Flexibility Acts

    USTR finds good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, and to make the rule effective immediately, because it removes an obsolete regulation that USTR has replaced with current guidance. Public input is not necessary and delaying codification is not in the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) does not apply to this final rule since prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 2008

    Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information.

    PART 2008—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 2171(e)(3), the Office of the United States Trade Representative removes and reserves part 2008 of chapter XX of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Janice Kaye, Chief Counsel for Administrative Law, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07220 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3290-F8-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 56 and 57 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030] RIN 1219-AB87 Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public stakeholder meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing the dates and locations of public stakeholder meetings on the Agency's standards for Examinations Of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines.

    DATES:

    The meeting dates and locations are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Register Publications: Access rulemaking documents electronically at http://www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm or http://www.regulations.gov [Docket Number: MSHA-2014-0030].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-9441 (fax). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Stakeholder Meetings

    MSHA will hold six public meetings to inform and educate the mining community on the requirements of the Metal and Nonmetal Examinations of Working Places final rule, which is effective June 2, 2018. At the meetings, MSHA will provide training and compliance assistance materials to attendees. The public meetings will begin at 9 a.m. and end not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:

    Date/time Location Contact No. May 1, 2018, 9 a.m DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Bloomington, 10 Brickyard Drive, Bloomington, Illinois 61701 309-664-6446 May 15, 2018, 9 a.m Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. N,, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 205-324-5000 May 17, 2018, 9 a.m Hilton Garden Inn, Pittsburgh Downtown, 250 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 412-281-5557 May 22, 2018, 9 a.m Renaissance Reno Downtown Hotel, One South Lake Street, Reno, Nevada 89501 775-682-3900 May 24, 2018, 9 a.m DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Dallas—Market Center, 2015 Market Center Blvd, Dallas, Texas 75207 214-741-7481 May 31, 2018, 9 a.m Hilton Garden Inn Denver Tech Center, 7675 East Union Ave., Denver, Colorado 80237 303-770-4200 II. Background

    On January 23, 2017, the Mine Safety and Health Administration published a final rule (January 2017 rule) amending the standards then in effect on examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 final rule, which was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017, was stayed until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). On September 12, 2017, MSHA published a proposed rule that would make limited changes to the January 2017 final rule (82 FR 42765). The final rule, which is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, is effective on June 2, 2018.

    David G. Zatezalo, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07083 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 56 and 57 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030] RIN 1219-AB87 Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 23, 2017, the Mine Safety and Health Administration published a final rule (January 2017 rule) amending provisions regarding examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines which were later stayed. MSHA is further amending the affected provisions following expiration of the stay. These additional amendments provide mine operators additional flexibility in managing their safety and health programs and reduces regulatory burdens without reducing the protections afforded miners. A document announcing stakeholder meetings is published concurrently with this rule in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Effective June 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-9441 (fax). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Regulatory History B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Summary II. Regulatory Procedures III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review; and Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs V. Feasibility VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations Availability of Information

    Federal Register Publications: Access rulemaking documents electronically at http://www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm or http://www.regulations.gov [Docket Number: MSHA-2014-0030]. Obtain a copy of a rulemaking document from the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, by request to 202-693-9440 (voice) or 202-693-9441 (facsimile). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    Email Notification: MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive an email notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register. To subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.

    I. Introduction

    Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), mine operators, with the assistance of miners, have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices. Operator compliance with safety and health standards and implementation of safe work practices provide a substantial measure of protection against hazards that cause accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Effective working place examinations are a fundamental accident prevention tool used by operators of metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. They allow operators to identify and correct adverse conditions that may affect the safety and health of miners and violations of safety and health standards before they cause injury or death to miners.

    MSHA's final rule makes changes to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a), § 56.18002(b) and (c), and § 57.18002(b) and (c) as amended by the Agency's final rule on examinations of working places that was published on January 23, 2017 (January 2017 rule) (82 FR 7680 at 7695). MSHA's changes to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) require that a competent person examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins, or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This final rule also amends §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require that the working place examination record include a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly. Lastly, MSHA's final rule makes a conforming change and amends §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) to require that when a condition that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.

    This final rule does not address longstanding concepts, definitions in existing MNM standards, and clarifications related to competent person, working place, promptly, and adverse conditions, as noted in the preamble to the January 2017 rule.

    After consideration of comments received on the September 12, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency concludes that the final rule will reduce the regulatory burden and increase flexibility for mine operators without reducing protections for miners and is consistent with the Administration's initiatives to reduce and control regulatory costs.

    A. Regulatory History

    On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, amending the Agency's standards for the examinations of working places in MNM mines, 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 (82 FR 7680). The January 2017 rule was scheduled to become effective on May 23, 2017. On May 22, 2017, MSHA published a final rule delaying the effective date to October 2, 2017 (82 FR 23139).

    On September 12, 2017, MSHA proposed to further delay the effective date of the final rule from October 2, 2017 to March 2, 2018 (82 FR 42765). On October 5, 2017, MSHA published a final rule that stayed the amendment from the January 2017 rule until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). Also, the October 5, 2017 final rule reinstated, as 30 CFR 56.18002T and 57.18002T, the provisions of the working place examination standards that were in effect as of October 1, 2017; these temporary provisions expire June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). (Sections 56.18002T and 57.18002T are subsequently referenced in this document as the “standards in effect”.) Also, on September 12, 2017, MSHA proposed a limited reopening of the rulemaking record for the January 2017 rule and proposed amendments to the January 2017 rule. The proposed changes that MSHA published for comment were limited to: (1) When working place examinations must begin; and (2) the adverse conditions and corrective actions that must be included in the working place examinations record (82 FR 42757). Specifically, MSHA proposed amending the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) to require that an examination of a working place be conducted before work begins, or as miners begin work in that place. The Agency also proposed amending §§ 56.18002(b) and (c) and 57.18002(b) and (c) to require that the examination record include descriptions of adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, and the dates of corrective action. MSHA held four public hearings from October 24, 2017, to November 2, 2017, at various locations, to provide the members of the public an opportunity to present their views on the limited proposed changes. These hearings were held in Arlington, Virginia; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The comment period for the proposed limited changes closed on November 13, 2017.

    B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Summary

    Based on its evaluation of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs (using 2016 dollars) of the final rule over a 10-year period will be approximately -$276 million, -$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and -$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. The same annual cost savings occur in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years will be approximately -$27.6 million for all discount rates. This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Negative cost values are cost savings that result in a positive net benefit. MSHA estimates that this final rule results in annual cost savings of $27.6 million. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    II. Regulatory Procedures

    On October 5, 2017, MSHA published a final rule staying the amendments from the January 2017 rule and temporarily reinstating the working place examinations standards that were in effect as of October 1, 2017, until June 2, 2018 (82 FR 46411). MSHA is confirming that both the stay and temporary provisions expire June 2, 2018.

    III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    After further review of the rulemaking record in the September 12, 2017 Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking, MSHA requested comments and information from the mining community only on the limited changes in the proposed rule—that is the timing of the working place examination and the recording of adverse conditions and corrective action dates in the examination record—and how these proposed changes may affect the safety and health of miners. MSHA also solicited comments on cost and benefit estimates presented in the preamble to the proposed rule and on the data and assumptions the Agency used to develop these estimates. This included the Agency's assumptions on the number of instances adverse conditions are promptly corrected, and time saved by not requiring these corrected conditions to be included in the record.

    MSHA received many comments related to issues other than those that were proposed. For example, commenters indicated that amendments to standards in effect are not needed or are not justified. Many stated the working place examination standards in effect which have been in effect since 1979 are sufficient and effective in identifying and correcting conditions that may adversely affect the safety and health of miners and in reducing accidents and injuries in the work place. In some cases, commenters suggested alternatives that included, for example, better mine and miner training, and work place inspection programs and plans.

    MSHA has not considered or addressed comments on issues other than those proposed because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Agency's purpose for the limited reopening of the rulemaking record for the January 2017 rule, and for issuing a proposed rule, was to reconsider issues related to the timing of the examination and the recording of adverse conditions and corrective actions in the examination record.

    Many commenters generally indicated that the changes in the proposed rule were improvements to the January 2017 rule, but several expressed concerns that the proposal did not go far enough in reducing mine operators' regulatory and cost burdens. Some also maintained that the proposal would not increase miners' protections at MNM mines, but would increase mine operators' administrative and paperwork burdens.

    One commenter stated that the proposed changes offer additional flexibility for operators to manage their safety and health programs more efficiently, while reducing burden without compromising miners' safety and health.

    MSHA agrees that the proposed changes to the January 2017 rule would reduce mine operators' burdens without compromising the safety and health of miners. Under the final rule, like the proposal, mine operators will have more flexibility on when to conduct their working place examinations. Furthermore, compared to the January 2017 rule, the examination record will be less burdensome for operators since only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, and dates of corrective actions for those conditions, must be included in the record. MSHA concludes that the final rule changes will reduce the regulatory burden and provide operators flexibility, without reducing the safety and health protections afforded miners.

    A. Before Work Begins or as Miners Begin Work

    This final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, amends the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) and requires a competent person to examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This final rule amends the January 2017 provisions to allow miners to enter a working place at the same time that the competent person conducts the examination. The January 2017 rule required the examination of each working place to be conducted before miners begin work in that place.

    Many commenters, including some who stated the proposed change to the timing of the examination is an improvement, stated that the proposed rule continues to unnecessarily constrain when operators can conduct their examinations. The reasons commenters gave included that shifts vary and that circumstances and conditions often change during the shift. Some commenters expressed concern that operators need flexibility to conduct examinations at any time during the shift as circumstances dictate, particularly to address changing conditions and hazards that can occur at any time throughout the shift. One of these commenters stated that requiring work place exams to be performed before miners begin working implicitly means that exams would take place before conditions start to change. One commenter commented that, generally, it is a good practice to conduct the exam before anybody enters the work area, whether at the start of the shift or later in the day. This same commenter acknowledged that unsafe conditions can occur throughout the shift and that operators are not relieved from their ongoing obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment under the Mine Act simply because a work place exam was done. Another commenter stated that the industry's existing practice of conducting these examinations during the shift constitutes a best safety practice. According to the commenter, operators know their work processes best, and are in the best position to tailor their examination practices to occur at a time that would provide the maximum safety benefit to miners. The majority of commenters expressed their support for retaining the standards in effect which, as previously noted in this preamble, is not within the scope of this rulemaking.

    In response to commenters' concerns, MSHA does not believe this final rule restricts operators' ability to conduct their examinations, or restricts their ability to conduct as many examinations as they need, depending on work place conditions. The final rule provides operators more flexibility in scheduling examinations than the January 2017 rule. Rather than requiring that examinations occur only before work begins in a working place, the final rule provides the option for a competent person to perform the examination at the same time that miners begin working in that place. With this option available, operators will be better able to manage work schedules to comply with examination requirements without incurring additional costs and burden.

    In addition, MSHA recognizes that mining operations have dynamic work environments where conditions are always changing. For that reason, mine operators and miners need to be aware of conditions that may occur at any time that could affect the safety and health of miners. The final rule requires that examinations be conducted at least once per shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place. As a best practice, operators should perform examinations, consistent with what one commenter stated, to identify and correct adverse conditions as they occur throughout the shift. Other commenters indicated that their companies' practices already include work place examinations that continue during the shift.

    Furthermore, as stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA acknowledges that for mines with consecutive shifts or those that operate on a 24-hour, 365-day basis, it may be appropriate to conduct the examination for the next shift at the end of the previous shift (82 FR 7683). In these cases, MSHA will continue to permit mine operators to conduct an examination on the previous shift. However, as MSHA stated in the January 2017 rule, because conditions at mines can change, operators should examine at a time sufficiently close to the start of the next shift to minimize miners' potential exposure to conditions that may adversely affect their safety or health.

    One commenter noted that the change in the proposed rule to allow workers to enter an area at the same time as the competent person does not consider the geographic differences between surface and underground mines and how surface mine supervision differs between the two. The commenter explained that in many cases, due to the geographic locations of crews starting at a surface mine, a competent person would not be able to examine all areas of the mine where several crews of miners would be starting work at the same time.

    As indicated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, it is not MSHA's intent that the mine operator examine the entire mine, unless work is beginning in the entire mine. An examination is only required in those areas where work will be performed. If miners are not scheduled for work in a particular area or place at the mine, that place does not need to be examined.

    MSHA also recognizes that there are mines where several crews start work at the same time in different areas of the mine. The competent person designation is not restricted to supervisors and foremen. If designated by the operator as having the required experience and ability, a non-supervisory miner on the crew starting work also may be “competent” to conduct the examination. MSHA believes that existing requirements for competent persons provide flexibility for operators while requiring the level of competency necessary to conduct adequate examinations.

    Some commenters did not support the proposed changes stating that allowing examinations as miners begin work in a potentially hazardous area would be less protective than the January 2017 amendments; one commenter stated the proposed revision is contrary to Section 101(a)(9) of the Mine Act. The commenters supported implementing the January 2017 requirement that the examination must occur before miners begin work in a working place. One commenter further questioned how sending miners into their work place before an examination has been conducted can be safer than identifying those hazards beforehand, correcting them, and informing the miners of such hazards before they begin their work. This commenter stated that examinations are particularly effective in the discovery and correction of hazardous conditions and practices before they lead to injuries or fatalities, that is, if they are conducted before miners are exposed. The commenter further stated the standard should not be changed to allow examinations after miners are already exposed. Another commenter did not support the changes, describing them as cutbacks in safety regulations, stating that lives will be lost and that the money saved is insignificant.

    While this final rule allows miners to enter a working place at the same time a competent person examines for adverse conditions, as stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA intends for adverse conditions to be identified and miner notification provided before miners are potentially exposed to the conditions. Under this final rule, a competent person will identify adverse conditions that can be corrected promptly and the operator will be responsible for correcting them. Miners will be promptly notified of adverse conditions found that cannot be corrected promptly, and operators will be required to include them in the examination record. This final rule, like the January 2017 rule, will promote early identification and improve communication of adverse conditions. MSHA believes that prudent operators will correct many adverse conditions as competent persons perform examinations, or as soon as possible after the completion of examinations. For these reasons, MSHA concludes that the requirements in this final rule are as protective as those in the January 2017 rule. Under this final rule, adverse conditions will be identified and miners will be notified of those adverse conditions that are not promptly corrected, before they are potentially exposed.

    Also, this final rule, like the January 2017 rule, does not require a specific time frame for the examination to be conducted. However, whether conducted before work begins in a working place or as work begins in that place, the examination should be conducted within a time frame sufficient to assure any adverse conditions would be identified before miners are potentially exposed.

    Some commenters supported the option to allow examinations to be performed as miners begin work in a working place. One commenter noted that it is best to train miners to perform examinations of their own working areas, and thus appropriate to allow examinations as they begin work. Another commenter stated that the change would maintain safe working conditions and provide sufficient flexibility for operators to conduct an examination while not interrupting the transition of shifts. This commenter pointed out that if only a pre-shift exam were required, as in the January 2017 rule, the start of the shift would be delayed to provide time for completion of the exam and communication of adverse conditions, or require personnel to arrive before the shift, resulting in overtime pay and/or delay of work.

    The final rule allows mine operators to perform examinations at the same time miners begin work. This provides operators with additional flexibility in scheduling working place examinations.

    B. Record of Adverse Conditions

    Sections 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b), like the proposal, require mine operators to make a record of the working place examination and to include, among other information, a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners that is not corrected promptly. The January 2017 rule required that each adverse condition be listed in the examination record. This final rule reduces the mine operator's recordkeeping burden by requiring that the examination record include only a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly. A similar conforming change to §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) requires that the examination record include the dates of corrective actions for only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly. In response to comments, the Agency concludes that providing a mine operator an exception to the recordkeeping requirement for conditions that are corrected promptly provides increased incentive to correct conditions promptly, without reducing protections for miners' safety and health. The Agency also believes that this action will likely result in operators' correcting adverse conditions more quickly, and thereby improving protections for miners.

    Consistent with the explanation in the preamble to the January 2017 rule regarding miner notification requirements in §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 57.18002(a)(1), MSHA interprets promptly to mean before miners are potentially exposed to adverse conditions. In the preamble, MSHA stated that if adverse conditions in the work area are corrected before miners are potentially exposed, notification is not necessary because no miners are exposed to the adverse conditions. Similarly, an adverse condition that is corrected promptly no longer presents a danger to miners, and a description of the adverse condition would not be required as part of the examination record. Similarly, if an adverse condition is not promptly corrected, the mine operator must notify miners and record it in the examination record.

    In addition, the purpose of the working place examinations rulemaking is to ensure that adverse conditions will be timely identified, communicated to miners, and corrected, thereby improving miners' safety and health. This final rule reduces the mine operator's recordkeeping burden but does not reduce the protections afforded miners under the January 2017 rule. Consistent with industry best practices, and with comments, MSHA recognizes that prudent mine operators routinely correct many adverse conditions during the examination, or as soon as possible after the completion of the working place examination, and that the corrective action may be taken by the competent person or someone else. For these reasons, the final rule requires the mine operator to record only those conditions that are not promptly corrected and that may expose miners to adverse conditions affecting their safety and health.

    In the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA explained that recording all adverse conditions, even those that are corrected promptly, would be useful in identifying trends and areas that could benefit from an increased safety emphasis. While this may be true, MSHA also believes that a recording exception for adverse conditions that are corrected promptly will yield as much or more in safety benefits, because it encourages prompt correction of adverse conditions.

    Some commenters opposed the proposed changes to the examination record provisions and expressed their support for implementing requirements of the January 2017 rule. These commenters suggested that all adverse conditions identified during a working place examination must be recorded to encourage mine operators to explore the possible causes of those conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions.

    Consistent with the purpose of the January 2017 rule, amending §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) reduces the mine operator's burden in recording each adverse condition and encourages prompt correction by requiring that the record include only those conditions that are not corrected promptly and may affect the safety and health of miners.

    Most commenters, however, were generally receptive to the proposed changes to the examination record requirements. They expressed that the changes were an improvement over the January 2017 rule and provided more flexibility for operators. Some noted that many adverse conditions are found and corrected during the examination. Others pointed out that requiring all adverse conditions be recorded in the examination record would overwhelm the record with minor housekeeping issues, and the proposed change would reduce the regulatory burden on the operator. Another commenter stated that removing the requirement to record all adverse conditions will provide an incentive for operators to take corrective actions immediately.

    MSHA agrees with these commenters and concludes that requiring mine operators to record only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly is as protective as the January 2017 rule. When a mine operator is not required to record an adverse condition which is corrected promptly in the examination record, the mine operator is incentivized to correct these conditions.

    Many commenters suggested that MSHA revise the examination record requirement to include only those adverse conditions not corrected during the shift, instead of the proposed requirement to include those not corrected promptly. They articulated that the reason for the record is to document adverse conditions that were not corrected timely and still need to be corrected. Some indicated that their recommended exception is consistent with the requirement that the mine operator make the record before the end of the shift.

    Recording adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly, rather than those corrected anytime during the shift as suggested by commenters, provides increased incentive for the mine operator to correct the adverse conditions sooner and reduces the risk of accidents, injuries, or illnesses.

    MSHA's change to the examination record requirements will reduce the operators' regulatory burden, while continuing to provide equivalent protection to miners' safety and health.

    IV. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review; and Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs by eliminating at least two existing regulations for each new regulation, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. MSHA believes that this rule reflects industry best practices and the estimated cost savings will likely be realized. As discussed in this section, MSHA estimates that this final rule results in annual cost savings of $27.6 million.1

    1 Except where noted, the analysis presents all dollar values using 2016 dollars.

    Under E.O. 12866, MSHA must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

    Based on its evaluation of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

    A. Affected Employees and Revenue Estimates

    The final rule applies to all MNM mines in the United States. In 2016, there were approximately 11,624 MNM mines employing 140,631 miners, excluding office workers, and 69,004 contractors working at MNM mines. Table 1 presents the number of MNM mines and employment by mine size.

    Table 1—MNM Mines and Employment in 2016 Mine size Number of mines Total employment
  • at mines, excluding
  • office workers
  • 1-19 Employees 10,428 52,703 20-500 Employees 1,174 71,257 501+ Employees 22 16,671 Contractors 69,004 Total 11,624 209,635 Source: MSHA MSIS Data (reported on MSHA Form 7000-2) June 6, 2017.

    The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. mining industry's MNM output in 2016 to be $74.6 billion.2 Table 2 presents the hours worked and revenue produced at MNM mines by mine size.

    2 Revenue estimates are from U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2017: U.S. Geological Survey, 202 pages, https://doi.org/10.3133/70180197, p. 9.

    Table 2—MNM Total Hours and Revenues in 2016 Mine size Total hours
  • reported for year
  • Revenue
  • (in millions
  • of dollars)
  • 1-19 Employees 89,901,269 $22,289 20-500 Employees 153,459,578 40,920 501+ Employees 35,396,747 11,390 Total 278,757,594 74,600 Source: MSHA MSIS Data (total hours worked at MNM mines reported on MSHA Form 7000-2) and estimated DOI reported mining revenues for 2016. MSHA distributed the totals to mine size using employment and hours data.
    B. Baseline

    MSHA estimated that the January 2017 rule would have resulted in $34.5 million in annual costs for the MNM industry. The Agency estimated that the total undiscounted cost over 10 years would have been $345.1 million; at a 3 percent discount rate, $294.4 million; and at a 7 percent discount rate, $242.4 million.

    For the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated costs associated with conducting an examination before miners begin work, the additional time to make a record, and providing miners' representatives a copy of the record. In the preamble to the January 2017 rule, MSHA concluded that MNM mine operators will use a variety of scheduling methods to conduct an examination of a working place before miners begin work (82 FR 7690). In addition, MSHA considered the following variables: (1) Percent of mine operators currently conducting workplace examinations before miners begin work; (2) number of shifts by mine size; (3) average time to conduct a workplace examination by mine size; (4) hourly wage rate; and (5) number of days a mine operates, on average, by mine size. The hourly wage rate used in MSHA's analysis assumes an average rate for all MNM mines. Like the January 2017 rule, wage rates for this final rule are from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupation Employment Statistics (OES). For this final rule, MSHA applied 2016 wage and employment data to the January 2017 rule cost estimate to calculate a baseline. In the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated that a mine operator would pay overtime for a competent person to arrive before the shift begins to conduct the working place examination. MSHA also estimated the cost for overtime as time and a half (52.92/hr = $35.28 × 1.5). MSHA retained the calculations and assumptions used in the January 2017 rule to conduct the examination before miners begin work. The revised annual cost base is $27.6 million, or an approximate $0.7 million increase. The updated annual cost consists of:

    • $5.13 million = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 15 percent × 20 minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $52.92 wage × 1.1 shifts per day × 1 exam × 169 workdays per year;

    • $20.72 million = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 65 percent × 1 hour × $52.92 wage × 1.8 shifts per day × 1 exam × 285 workdays per year; and

    • $1.75 million = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 85 percent × 2.5 hours × $52.92 wage × 2.2 shifts per day × 1 exam × 322 workdays per year.

    In the January 2017 rule, MSHA estimated the cost of making a record of each examination before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. MSHA retained the calculations and assumptions used for this cost estimate (82 FR 7691). The revised annual cost base, which was updated for wage inflation and final 2016 data on the number of mines in operation, is $7.516 million, an approximate $216,000 increase. The updated annual cost consists of:

    • $5.70 million = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 1.1 shift per day × 1 exam record × 169 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour;

    • $1.77 million = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 1.8 shifts per day × 1 exam record × 285 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour; and

    • $45,816 = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 2.2 shifts per day × 1 exam record × 322 workdays per year × 5 additional minutes × 1 hr/60 min × $35.28 per hour.

    MSHA also retained the calculations and assumptions used to estimate the costs of making a copy of the examination record and providing it to miners' representatives. The annual costs, which were also updated for wage inflation and the number of mines in operations, consist of:

    • $137,121 = 10,428 mines with 1-19 employees × 10 percent × 1.1 shifts per day × 169 workdays per year × ((1 minute × $24.44 per hour) + $0.30 copy costs); • $213,000 = 1,174 mines with 20-500 employees × 50 percent × 1.8 shifts per day × 285 workdays per year × ((1 minute × $24.44 per hour) + $0.30 copy costs); and • $11,024 = 22 mines with 501+ employees × 100 percent × 2.2 shifts per day × 322 workdays per year × ((1 minute × $24.44 per hour) + $0.30 copy costs).

    The revised annual cost base is $.361 million, an approximate $15,000 increase.

    C. Net Benefits

    Net benefits are the result of subtracting costs from benefits. As detailed in the Benefits and Compliance Cost sections below, no monetized benefits minus the cost savings of −$27.6 million results in a net benefit of $27.6 million annually undiscounted as well as the same value at discount rates of 7 and 3 percent.

    D. Benefits

    As previously stated, this final rule modifies §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that required the examination be conducted before miners begin work in that place to also allow an examination to be as miners begin work in that place. In addition the final rule modifies §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require a description of each adverse condition found that is not corrected promptly. MSHA's final rule also modifies §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) to require that the examination record include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action for conditions that are not corrected promptly.

    MSHA does not believe the changes to the January 2017 rule reduce the protections afforded miners. As MSHA stated in the preamble to the January 2017 rule, the Agency was unable to separate quantifiable benefits from the January 2017 rule from those benefits attributable to conducting a workplace examination under the standards in effect. MSHA continues to anticipate, however, that there will be benefits from more effective and consistent working place examinations that help to ensure that adverse conditions will be timely identified, communicated to miners, and corrected. MSHA anticipates that the record requirements will improve accident prevention by helping mine operators identify any patterns or trends of adverse conditions and preventing these conditions from recurring. Since MSHA was unable to quantify benefits for this rulemaking, MSHA is not claiming a monetized benefit for this final rule.

    E. Compliance Costs

    The costs of this final rule are associated with conducting examinations of a working place as miners begin work in that place. For the January 2017 rule estimate, MSHA assumed that operators could have incurred overtime costs, hiring costs, or experience rescheduling costs to comply with the requirement that an examination occur before miners began work. Under this rulemaking, MSHA estimated that mine operators would not incur these costs. MSHA solicited comments, but did not receive specific data or information on the Agency's assumptions or costs saving estimate.

    MSHA did not change the longstanding definition related to “competent person.” Many commenters recognized that MSHA did not propose changing this definition and, that in many mines, miners are trained and perform as competent persons. However, other commenters considered the requirement that a competent person perform the examination to be a new cost. In addition, the standards in effect require a competent person designated by a mine operator to examine each working place at least once per shift. Therefore, requiring a competent person to perform the examination is not a new cost.

    Some commenters suggested that mine operators would incur other costs related to the January 2017 rule due to differences in physical mine sizes, or differences between underground and surface mining operations, and these amendments did not eliminate all of the timing costs attributable to the 2017 rule. However, these commenters did not provide MSHA sufficient data or information for the Agency to quantify the costs associated with the differences in mine size or mining operations. Further, MSHA's estimates represent averages; individual mines have costs above and below the average.

    The January 2017 rule also specified the contents of the examination record, which included a requirement that the record include a description of all adverse conditions found. Under this final rule, MSHA reduces the mine operators' burden by modifying the required contents of the examination record. The final rule requires that the examination record include a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly, and no longer requires a record of adverse conditions that are corrected promptly. MSHA solicited information and data on the number of instances adverse conditions are promptly corrected and, on average, how much time would be saved by not requiring corrected conditions to be included in the record. MSHA did not receive data or information in response to this request; therefore, the Agency has estimated no change in costs related to the change to the recordkeeping requirements. The following table reports the published January 2017 rule costs, updates to the baseline, and the final rule's cost savings (cost reductions have a negative sign and are a cost savings). As the table reports, only the timing of the examination has a cost impact for this rulemaking.

    Table 3—Undiscounted Costs, Changes, and Regulatory Savings [Annual values, millions, 2016 dollars except as noted] Record
  • keeping
  • Examination
  • timing
  • Total
  • (may not
  • sum due to
  • rounding)
  • Costs as published in Jan. 2017 rule (published using 2015 dollars) 7.64 26.88 34.51 Changes due to updated 2016 baseline data 0.24 0.72 0.95 Total revised baseline for Jan. 2017 rule 7.88 27.60 35.47 Regulatory savings of final rule (change from updated baseline, negative values = cost savings) 0.00 −27.60 −27.60
    Overhead Costs

    MSHA did not include an overhead labor cost in the economic analysis for this final rule. It is also important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate, and the use of overhead rate to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze costs of any regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of overhead and there are a range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government—for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,3 and the Employee Benefits Security Administration has used 132 percent on average.4 Some overhead costs, such as advertising and marketing, may be more closely correlated with output rather than with labor. Other overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For example, rent or payroll processing costs may change little with the addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but those costs may change substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated with 2 hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee). Guidance on implementing Executive Order 137715 also provides general guidance that applies in this situation:

    3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,” June 10, 2002.

    4 For a further example of overhead cost estimates, please see the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.

    5 Memorandum: Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, M-17-21”, April 5, 2017, Question 21, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/05/memorandum-implementing-executive-order-13771-titled-reducing-regulation.

    For E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions that revise or repeal recently issued rules, agencies generally should not estimate cost savings that exceed the costs previously projected for the relevant requirements, unless credible new evidence show that costs were previously underestimated.

    The cost estimate for the January 2017 rule did not include overhead. If, for this rule, MSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, the overhead costs would increase cost savings from $27.6 million to $32.3 million at all discount rates, 17 percent more than costs previously projected. This increase in savings of $4.7 million is the same as the 17 percent overhead rate because all rule costs are labor costs and therefore total costs change in direct proportion to the overhead rates selected. MSHA will continue to study overhead costs to ensure regulatory costs are appropriately attributed without double counting or showing savings for concepts not previously considered as costs.

    Discounting

    Discounting is a technique used to apply the economic concept that the preference for the value of money decreases over time. In this analysis, MSHA provides cost totals at zero, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The zero percent discount rate is referred to as the undiscounted rate. MSHA used the Excel® Net Present Value (NPV) function to determine the present value of costs and computed an annualized cost from the present value using the Excel PMT function.6 The negative value of the PMT function provides the annualized cost over 10 years at 3 and 7 percent discount rates using the function's end of period option.

    6 Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions, February 7, 2011.

    MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of the final rule over a 10-year period will be approximately −$276 million, −$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and −$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. Negative cost values are cost savings. The same annual cost savings occurs in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years will be approximately −$27.6 million.

    V. Feasibility A. Technological Feasibility

    The final rule contains examination timing and recordkeeping requirements and is not technology-forcing. MSHA concludes that the final rule will be technologically feasible.

    B. Economic Feasibility

    MSHA established the economic feasibility of the January 2017 rule using its traditional revenue screening test—whether the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of revenues—to establish presumptively that the January 2017 rule was economically feasible for the mining community. This final rule creates a cost savings of −$27.6 million annually compared to the January 2017 rule. Although the associated revenues decreased slightly from the January 2017 rule estimate of $77.6 billion in 2015 to approximately $74.6 billion for 2016, the costs retained from the January 2017 rule of approximately $7.9 million per year remain well less than one percent of revenues and the net decrease in costs (−$27.6 million annually) is even more supportive of the Agency's conclusion. MSHA concludes that the final rule will be economically feasible for the MNM mining industry.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking

    In the proposed rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, MSHA requested comments on its proposed certification. MSHA has reviewed comments pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). For the RFA considerations and certification, MSHA has included the impact of the final rule on small entities only as defined by the Small Business Administration. Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency, therefore, is not required to develop a final regulatory flexibility analysis. MSHA presents the factual basis for this certification below.

    A. Definition of a Small Mine

    Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the Federal Register for notice and comment. Although the description of the base costs in the Baseline section includes various mine sizes, MSHA has not established an alternative definition and, therefore, must use SBA's definition. MSHA's traditional definition of a small mine (1-19 employees) is used to assist the mining community understand MSHA's compliance cost estimates and not intended to determine the impact of the final rule on small entities, as required.

    On February 26, 2016, SBA's revised size standards became effective. SBA updated the small business thresholds for mining by establishing a number of different levels. MSHA used the SBA standards, definitions, and the 2017 NAICS updates for the screening analysis of the final rule. To align MSHA's data with the SBA definitions, the Agency used the largest value of total mine employment identified by total employment reported to MSHA by the mine operators, total controller employment, or total employment identified from MSHA's research.

    B. Factual Basis for Certification

    MSHA initially evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When this threshold analysis shows estimated compliance costs have been less than one percent of the estimated revenues, the Agency has concluded that it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Additionally, there is the possibility that a rule might have a positive economic impact. To properly apply MSHA's traditional criteria and consider the positive impact case, MSHA adjusted its traditional threshold analysis criteria to consider the absolute value of one percent rather than only the adverse case. This slight change means when the absolute value of the estimated compliance costs exceeds one percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required. For small entities impacted by this final rule, MSHA used the average per mine cost savings and average revenues per mine (See Table 2) to estimate the revenue at $40.4 billion and costs savings at $17.2 million (subtracting negative costs results in a positive).

    As a percentage, the absolute value of the impact is approximately 0.04 percent ($17.2 million/$40.4 billion); therefore, using the threshold analysis, MSHA concludes no further analysis is required and concludes the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Table 4 shows the estimate of impact by NAICS code.

    Table 4—Small Entity Impact by NAICS Code NAICS NAICS description Small standard
  • (maximum
  • employees)
  • Number small
  • mines
  • Revenue
  • small mines
  • ($ millions)
  • One percent
  • of revenues
  • ($ millions)
  • Cost savings
  • for small
  • mines
  • ($ millions,
  • savings are
  • positive)
  • Cost
  • exceeds 1
  • percent
  • (absolute
  • value)
  • 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 1,250 6 16 0 0.0 No. 212210 Iron Ore Mining 750 24 1,671 17 0.3 No. 212221 Gold Ore Mining 1,500 116 2,125 21 0.4 No. 212222 Silver Ore Mining 250 8 155 2 0.0 No. 212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining 750 40 2,423 24 0.5 No. 212291 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ore Mining 250 3 85 1 0.1 No. 212299 All Other Metal Ore Mining 750 11 205 2 0.1 No. 212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying 500 762 2,993 30 1.8 No. 212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying 750 1,320 7,102 71 3.3 No. 212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying 750 146 1,310 13 0.7 No. 212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying 500 1,048 4,030 40 2.2 No. 212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining 500 5,278 9,550 95 4.4 No. 212322 Industrial Sand Mining 500 232 1,182 12 0.7 No. 212324 Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining 750 9 226 2 0.1 No. 212325 Clay and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining 500 211 1,380 14 0.9 No. 212391 Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining 750 8 936 9 0.1 No. 212392 Phosphate Rock Mining 1,000 8 556 6 0.1 No. 212393 Other Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining 500 46 603 6 0.3 No. 327310 Cement Manufacturing 1,000 39 2,114 21 0.7 No. 327410 Lime Manufacturing 750 32 985 10 0.5 No. 331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production 1,000 5 728 7 0.1 No. Grand Total (totals do not sum due to rounding) n/a n/a 9,352 40,374 404 17.2 No.
    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final changes due to this rulemaking are unlikely to change the number of collections or respondents in the currently approved collection 1219-0089. The recordkeeping change from the January 2017 rule may reduce the burden slightly, but MSHA concludes that any small decrease in the time needed to make the record may not be measurable. MSHA requested comments on this issue in the September 2017 proposed rule preamble (82 FR 42761). MSHA received a comment accepting the conclusion and other comments stating the requirement to record all adverse conditions was overly burdensome. MSHA revised the regulatory requirement to reduce the burden but did not receive any comments with information that would help MSHA decrease the burden estimate. MSHA concludes that the previously approved collection 1219-0089 remains representative and is not requesting any change to the burden estimate in the approved collection.

    VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    MSHA has reviewed the final rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that this rule does not include any federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments; nor will it increase private sector expenditures by more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in any one year or significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that this final rule will have no effect on family stability or safety, marital commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this final rule will not impact family well-being.

    C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    Section 5 of E.O. 12630 requires Federal agencies to “identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions . . .” MSHA has determined that this final rule does not include a regulatory or policy action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains requirements for Federal agencies promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity, providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA has reviewed this final rule and has determined that it will meet the applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    MSHA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, E.O. 13132 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    MSHA has determined that this final rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    G. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. In its January 2017 rule, MSHA reviewed the rule for its energy effects. The impact on uranium mines is applicable in this case. MSHA data show only two active uranium mines in 2016. Because this final rule will have a net cost savings, MSHA has concluded that it will not be a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Accordingly, under this analysis, no further Agency action or analysis is required.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Parts 56 and 57

    Metals, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    David G. Zatezalo, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is amending parts 56 and 57 of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL MINES 1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 811.

    2. Revise § 56.18002 to read as follows:
    § 56.18002 Examination of working places.

    (a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.

    (1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.

    (2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.

    (b) A record of each examination shall be made before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. The record shall contain the name of the person conducting the examination; date of the examination; location of all areas examined; and description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly.

    (c) When a condition that may adversely affect safety or health is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.

    (d) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year, make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners, and provide these representatives a copy on request.

    PART 57—SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL MINES 3. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 811.

    4. Revise § 57.18002 to read as follows:
    § 57.18002 Examination of working places.

    (a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.

    (1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.

    (2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.

    (b) A record of each examination shall be made before the end of the shift for which the examination was conducted. The record shall contain the name of the person conducting the examination; date of the examination; location of all areas examined; and description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly.

    (c) When a condition that may adversely affect safety or health is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.

    (d) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year, make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners, and provide these representatives a copy on request.

    [FR Doc. 2018-07084 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 81 [Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0048] RIN 0790-AJ97 Paternity Claims and Adoption Proceedings Involving Members and Former Members of the Armed Forces AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning paternity claims and adoption proceedings involving members and former members of the Armed Forces. The DoD policy that corresponds with this rule is not required by law and was rescinded. This part is not necessary, therefore, it can be removed from the CFR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LTCOL Reggie Yager, 703-571-9301.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it seeks to remove DoD policy from the CFR that has already been rescinded.

    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 81

    Claims, Infants and children, Military personnel.

    PART 81—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 81 is removed. Dated: April 3, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07161 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0261] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain navigable waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta event.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0261 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section COTP Captain of the Port U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard just recently received the final details of this rowing event, Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, which does not provide sufficient time to publish an NPRM prior to the event. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because the special regulation must be effective on May 5, 2018.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a special local regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 05, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N, 083°09.4′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N, 083°08.9′ W (NAD 83).

    An on-scene representative of the COTP may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560.

    The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. May 05, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting ten hours that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.T09-0261 to read as follows:
    § 100.T09-0261 Special Local Regulation; Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta, Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following regulated area is established as a special local regulation: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N, 083°09.4′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N, 083°08.9′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Vessels transiting through the regulated area are to maintain the minimum speeds for safe navigation.

    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter, transit through, anchoring in, remaining in, or operate within the regulated area must contact the CTOP Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    (d) Enforcement date. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 5, 2018.

    Dated: April 2, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07159 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0226] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to limit and control bridge openings during the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Pulaski Skyway Bridge.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from April 9, 2018 through 11:59 p.m. on July 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on April 2, 2018, until April 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0226, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to complete the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the adjacent Pulaski Skyway Bridge. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.

    This temporary deviation will allow the Route 1 & 9 Bridge to open on signal from April 2, 2018 to July 31, 2018, except that the draw will not open to vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, between 6 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and between 2:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., except holidays. On Federal holidays, the Route 1 & 9 Bridge will open on signal. Tide dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings during the rush hour closure periods, provided that at least a six hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

    The waterway is transited by recreational vessels and commercial vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass, but the bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators may arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: April 2, 2018. Christopher J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07215 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 4 RIN 2900-AP13 Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the Breast AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) by revising the portion of the rating schedule that addresses gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast. The effect of this action is to ensure that this portion of the rating schedule uses current medical terminology and to provide detailed and updated criteria for evaluation of gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This rule is effective on May 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ioulia Vvedenskaya, M.D., M.B.A., Medical Officer, Part 4 VASRD Regulations Staff (211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 80 FR 10637 on February 27, 2015, to amend 38 CFR 4.116, the portion of the VASRD dealing with gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast. VA provided a 60-day public comment period and interested persons were invited to submit written comments on or before April 28, 2015. VA received 13 comments.

    Several commenters expressed their support for the proposed rule and thanked VA for promoting gender equality in the rating schedule.

    One commenter demanded compensation for his multiple debilitating health issues, which he attributed to exposure to toxic substances at Fort McClellan. He also urged VA to pass the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, H.R. 411, 113th Cong. (2013). Several commenters stated their belief that their multiple medical conditions are due to exposure to toxic substances at Fort McClellan and asked to be considered for service connection. Another commenter provided information about his medical conditions, which he stated he developed after his reservist's training at Fort McClellan that involved chemical agent training. These comments focus on issues of service connection, rather than the appropriate rating for already service-connected disabilities, and individual claims for VA benefits, which are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Regarding the commenter's request that VA “pass” the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, VA notes that this act is a Congressional act and not before VA. This comment is also beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes to the proposed rule based on these comments.

    One commenter had a question about the proposed note to diagnostic code 7615 “Ovary, disease, injury, or adhesions of” asking if the note would create a narrow category for disability evaluation by identifying dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea. The commenter's concern is not entirely clear. To the extent the commenter is asking whether VA considers dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea disabilities for rating purposes, the note to diagnostic code 7615 provides that dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea shall be rated under that diagnostic code. To the extent the commenter is asking whether identification of dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea in the note limits the application of diagnostic code 7615 to those diseases, it does not. Dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea are only examples of diseases that would be rated under diagnostic code 7615. Other impairments associated with disease, injury, or adhesions of the ovaries will continue to be rated under diagnostic code 7615. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    One commenter wanted to include premature hysterectomy secondary to menorrhagia as an additional gynecological disability in the rating schedule. VA evaluates service-connected hysterectomy under diagnostic codes 7617 and 7618. The cause of the hysterectomy may be a factor in determining service connection, but is not important in evaluating the condition. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    One commenter suggested adding a new diagnostic code or adjusting an existing code for infertility due to the loss or loss of use of other organs besides the uterus and ovaries, specifically fallopian tubes. The commenter asserted that, with respect to the uterus and ovaries, the minimum rating for a condition that causes infertility is 20 percent and that this rating does not take into account symptoms, only whether the organs are able to function reproductively. Therefore, the commenter asserts that any damage to any part of the female reproductive system that causes infertility should result in at least a 20 percent evaluation.

    While tubal damage may be associated with infertility, infertility is not in itself a disability for VA rating purposes. It does not result in the loss of average earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1 (stating that the purpose of the rating schedule is to represent the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries in civil occupations). Diagnostic code 7614, Fallopian tube, disease, injury, or adhesions of, provides disability ratings for functional impairment due to symptoms associated with fallopian tube damage. If loss or loss of use of a creative organ due to service-connected fallopian tube damage is present, VA will consider special monthly compensation under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.350(a). VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    The same commenter proposes to add the diagnosis of repeated miscarriages to the list of presumptive conditions for female veterans who have been exposed to radiation, herbicides, or other environmental factors that could negatively impact the ability of a fetus to properly develop and carry to full term. The commenter also suggested VA provide for an award of special monthly compensation under the provisions of § 3.350(a) for repeated miscarriages of an unknown etiology while on active duty. Miscarriages themselves are not disabilities for VA rating purposes, as they do not result in impairment of earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1. The proposed rating criteria provide for adequate ratings based on impairment in earning capacity due to service-connected damage to reproductive organs, which may include chronic residuals of medical or surgical complications of pregnancy incurred during service. Additionally, special monthly compensation may be warranted for loss or loss of use of a creative organ due to service-connected disability. See 38 CFR 3.350(a)(1). Updating the list of presumptive conditions for veterans who have been exposed to radiation, herbicides, or other environmental factors is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is about the rating of conditions which have been service connected, not about which diseases should be subject to presumptive service connection. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

    The same commenter asked how powerful a diagnosis of female sexual arousal disorder would be as supporting evidence for military sexual trauma (MST). This rulemaking concerns the rating schedule in part 4, specifically 38 CFR 4.116, and the evaluations that VA assigns for physiological impairment due to disorders of the gynecological system and disorders of the breasts. The evidentiary criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder are listed in 38 CFR 3.304(f). Further, mental disabilities due to MST are evaluated under the rating schedule for mental disorders in § 4.130. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    One commenter was supportive of the overall changes and additions to this section of the rating schedule. However, the commenter expressed concern that the proposed rating criteria for diagnostic code 7621 do not adequately measure disability affecting multiple body systems. Specifically, the commenter stated that the proposed rule was unclear as to whether a veteran would obtain evaluations under other body systems for the complications of pelvic organ prolapse, or whether the mild, moderate, or severe rating under proposed amended diagnostic code 7621 is meant to encompass all symptoms due to one or multiple pelvic organ prolapses. The commenter stated that, if these manifestations in different body systems are meant to be compensated under diagnostic code 7621, there is great potential for undercompensating the veteran, as separate ratings under the genitourinary and digestive system may afford a higher combined evaluation. The commenter further questioned whether rating the manifestations separately would constitute “pyramiding” under 38 CFR 4.14.

    The same commenter also indicated that the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system upon which proposed diagnostic code 7621 was based does not correlate with the severity of symptoms affecting multiple body systems. In addition, the same commenter suggested that VA add a note to diagnostic code 7621 to clarify that functional impairment of other body systems, including the urinary and the digestive systems, as a result of pelvic organ prolapse, shall be evaluated under the appropriate diagnostic codes.

    Evaluations under proposed diagnostic code 7621 were intended to represent the average severity of symptoms, including gynecological, urinary, and digestive symptoms, and level of impairment as contemplated by the POP-Q system. Therefore, assigning separate ratings under proposed diagnostic code 7621 and the genitourinary or digestive systems would have violated pyramiding principles under 38 CFR 4.14 by allowing evaluations for urinary and/or digestive symptoms twice. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-262 (1994). VA acknowledges, however, that the average may not apply to all women and that two women with the same degree of prolapse (as measured by POP-Q) may experience different disabling effects based on their anatomical size. Therefore, in order to more accurately evaluate functional impairment and to ensure that the severity of the symptoms affecting multiple body systems are fully captured, VA amends the proposed rating criteria and the note under diagnostic code 7621 to include guidance on how to rate the residuals and complications of pelvic organ prolapse.

    First, VA amends diagnostic code 7621 to provide a 10 percent disability rating in all cases of complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury, disease, or surgical complications of pregnancy. This minimum level of compensation recognizes the disabling effects of the alteration to a woman's normal anatomy, such as a feeling of vaginal fullness or heaviness or pressure in the pelvis, that are not generally included in the compensable levels of disability in other body systems. The higher disability ratings in originally proposed diagnostic code 7621 took into consideration genitourinary, digestive, and skin symptoms, which will now be evaluated separately as described in the revised note to diagnostic code 7621.

    Second, VA agrees with the commenter that information should be added to the proposed note under diagnostic code 7621 to clarify how rating personnel should evaluate urinary and digestive symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Specifically, VA is adding information to the note under diagnostic code 7621 to clarify that rating personnel should separately evaluate any genitourinary, digestive, or skin symptoms under the appropriate diagnostic code(s) and combine all evaluations with the 10 percent evaluation under diagnostic code 7621. With this clarification, VA ensures that women with pelvic organ prolapse will receive adequate levels of compensation based on the functional impairment associated with their prolapse, regardless of any anatomical differences. The discussion by the commenter identified another potential approach of considering the greater evaluation under either proposed diagnostic code 7621 or the appropriate system. Under that approach, however, a veteran whose evaluation was based on a diagnostic code under a different body system would not be compensated for the disabling effects of prolapse specific to the gynecological system. The revised rule ensures that the disabling effects associated with multiple body systems are fully captured.

    The same commenter also suggested VA amend VA Form 21-0960K-2, Gynecological Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) to add questions regarding the effects of any diagnosed gynecological condition on the digestive system and consideration of whether the veteran has loss of use of a creative organ. The commenter noted that the DBQ already asks the examiner to comment on whether the gynecological conditions impact the genitourinary system. Currently, VA Form 21-0960K-2 asks an examiner to report any complications resulting from obstetrical or gynecological conditions or procedures. Additionally, VA Form 21-0960K-2 asks the examiner if the veteran has any other pertinent findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms related to any conditions listed in the diagnosis section of the form. Therefore, VA has an adequate mechanism to capture each and every condition related to the effects of any diagnosed gynecological condition, including the digestive system and loss of use of a creative organ. VA also notes that all affected DBQs will be updated upon issuance of this final rule and will adhere to the same principles of recording pertinent findings. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

    Lastly, the same commenter suggested VA add a separate diagnostic code in § 4.116 for loss of coital function due to removal of the vagina by colpectomy and a note to consider special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350(a) to increase rating consistency. VA appreciates this comment, but notes that the VASRD, in accordance with 38 CFR 4.1, is “a guide in the evaluation of disability” in terms of occupational impairment and is not an exhaustive list of all potential diseases or conditions. This is further reinforced by 38 CFR 4.20, which specifically provides for analogous evaluations for unlisted conditions according to closely related diseases or injuries based on function affected, anatomical location, and symptomatology.

    Colpectomy, also known as vaginectomy, is a surgical procedure that obliterates the vaginal canal in order to alleviate the symptoms of advanced pelvic organ prolapse or to treat gynecological malignancies. Such obliterative procedure is reserved for women who are not candidates for more extensive surgery or do not plan future vaginal intercourse. Colpectomy is generally deemed appropriate for elderly patients with medical comorbidities or for patients with previous failed prolapse surgery or pessary trials who are not sexually active. Evans, J., Karram, M., “Step by step: Obliterating the vaginal canal to correct pelvic organ prolapse,” OBG Manag. 2012 February;24(2):30-41 https://www.mdedge.com/sites/default/files/Document/September-2017/0212_OBGM_Karram.pdf. Colpectomy in younger patients is performed to treat advanced vaginal and/or uterine cancer. In cases of uterine cancer, colpectomy is used exclusively in conjunction with total abdominal hysterectomy. In cases of vaginal cancer, vaginectomy may be partial, subtotal, or total, depending on the extent of the disease. Vaginal reconstruction is offered in order to preserve coital function. Bardavil, T. et al., “Vaginal Cancer” (updated Jan. 11, 2015), Medscape, https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/269188-overview#a23 (last accessed March 8, 2018). Partial vaginectomy is not associated with the loss of coital function.

    Accordingly, the vast majority of colpectomy procedures involve associated partial or complete hysterectomy, currently addressed in diagnostic code 7618 and a new, separate diagnostic code for colpectomy is unnecessary; functional impairment due to the colpectomy/total vaginectomy is adequately addressed under diagnostic code 7618 for partial and/or total hysterectomy. In rare cases, colpectomy is performed without any form of hysterectomy; VA will evaluate these circumstances analogously to diagnostic code 7618, and, in the absence of functional impairment or other findings, apply the provisions of 38 CFR 4.31 to establish service connection at a noncompensable rate. This approach provides VA with adequate criteria to evaluate functional impairment associated with colpectomy, with or without hysterectomy, and to establish service connection for a disability for purposes of an award of special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350(a). We note that while vaginal damage due to colpectomy may be associated with loss of coital function, coital function is not in itself a disability for VA rating purposes. It does not result in the loss of earning capacity. See 38 CFR 4.1.

    Entitlement to special monthly compensation for anatomical loss or loss of use of a creative organ may not be awarded more than once per creative organ. In the case of colpectomy with loss of coital function, the presence or absence of partial/total hysterectomy does not entitle a female veteran to additional awards of special monthly compensation based on further anatomical loss of a creative organ; in either scenario the veteran has met the statutory criteria for anatomical loss or loss of use of the female creative organ with varying degrees of functional disability associated with the loss/loss of use. Accordingly, establishing a separate diagnostic code for colpectomy would not create entitlement to additional special monthly compensation under 38 CFR 3.350. For these reasons, VA makes no changes based on these comments at this time.

    One commenter was supportive of the proposed addition of the new diagnostic code 7632, Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD). The commenter noted that the title used, “Female sexual arousal disorder,” is not the current medical term used in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). In DSM-5, gender-specific sexual dysfunctions have been added, and, for females, sexual desire and arousal disorders have been combined into one disorder: Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder.

    VA's proposed diagnostic code 7632 differs from the DSM-5 diagnosis because it only addresses the physiologic form of FSAD, which is caused in part by decreased blood flow to the genital area and peripheral nerve damage due to micro trauma or disease process. This form of FSAD does not include the psychological features of Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder outlined in DSM-5 such as lack of, or significantly reduced, sexual interest or desire. If an individual is diagnosed with Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder as outlined in DSM-5 that is service connected, she will be rated under the appropriate diagnostic code under 38 CFR 4.130, which pertains to mental disorders. Furthermore, if her disability picture includes FSAD, defined as the continual or recurrent inability to accomplish or maintain an ample lubrication-swelling reaction during sexual intercourse, then separate compensation under diagnostic code 7632 would be appropriate. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    VA appreciates the comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. Based on the rationale stated in the proposed rule and in this document, the proposed rule is adopted as a final rule with the changes noted above. Additionally, VA notes that it is making a technical correction to its proposed changes to Appendix B to Part 4—Numerical Index of Disabilities. Specifically, VA inadvertently left out instructions to delete references to diagnostic codes 7622 and 7623 which, as discussed in the proposed rule, are being removed.

    Effective Date of Final Rule

    Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) personnel utilize the Veterans Benefit Management System for Rating (VBMS-R) to process disability compensation claims that involve disability evaluations made under the VASRD. In order to ensure that there is no delay in processing veterans' claims, VA must coordinate the effective date of this final rule with corresponding VBMS-R system updates. As such, this final rule will apply effective May 13, 2018, the date VBMS-R system updates related to this final rule will be complete.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 through FYTD. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Specifically, this final rule is associated with information collections related to the filing of disability benefits claims (VA Form 21-526EZ) as well as Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) which enable a claimant to gather the necessary information from his or her treating physician as to the current symptoms and severity of a disability (VA Forms 21-0960K-1, Breast Conditions and Disorders DBQ, and 21-0960K-2, Gynecological Conditions DBQ). Both information collections are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0747 and 2900-0778, respectively. VA has reviewed the impact of this final rule on these information collections and determined that the information collection burden is de minimis.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4

    Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 3, 2018, for publication.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Jeffrey M. Martin, Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 4 as follows:

    PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.

    Subpart B—Disability Ratings 2. Amend § 4.116 as follows: a. Revise the entry for diagnostic code 7610; b. Add a note at the end of the entries for diagnostic codes 7615 and 7619; c. Revise the entry for diagnostic code 7621; d. Remove the entries for diagnostic codes 7622 and 7623; e. Revise the entries for diagnostic codes 7627 and 7628; f. Add entries for diagnostic codes 7630 through 7632 in numerical order; and g. Add an authority citation at the end of the section.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 4.116 Schedule of ratings—gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast. Rating *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7610 Vulva or clitoris, disease or injury of (including vulvovaginitis) *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7615 * * * Note: For the purpose of VA disability evaluation, a disease, injury, or adhesions of the ovaries resulting in ovarian dysfunction affecting the menstrual cycle, such as dysmenorrhea and secondary amenorrhea, shall be rated under diagnostic code 7615 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7619 * * * Note: In cases of the removal of one ovary as the result of a service-connected injury or disease, with the absence or nonfunctioning of a second ovary unrelated to service, an evaluation of 30 percent will be assigned for the service-connected ovarian loss *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7621 Complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury, disease, or surgical complications of pregnancy 10 Note: Pelvic organ prolapse occurs when a pelvic organ such as bladder, urethra, uterus, vagina, small bowel, or rectum drops (prolapse) from its normal place in the abdomen. Conditions associated with pelvic organ prolapse include: uterine or vaginal vault prolapse, cystocele, urethrocele, rectocele, enterocele, or any combination thereof. Evaluate pelvic organ prolapse under DC 7621. Evaluate separately any genitourinary, digestive, or skin symptoms under the appropriate diagnostic code(s) and combine all evaluations with the 10 percent evaluation under DC 7621 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7627 Malignant neoplasms of gynecological system 100 Note: A rating of 100 percent shall continue beyond the cessation of any surgical, radiation, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedures. Six months after discontinuance of such treatment, the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter. Rate chronic residuals to include scars, lymphedema, disfigurement, and/or other impairment of function under the appropriate diagnostic code(s) within the appropriate body system 7628 Benign neoplasms of gynecological system. Rate chronic residuals to include scars, lymphedema, disfigurement, and/or other impairment of function under the appropriate diagnostic code(s) within the appropriate body system *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7630 Malignant neoplasms of the breast 100 Note: A rating of 100 percent shall continue beyond the cessation of any surgical, radiation, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure. Six months after discontinuance of such treatment, the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter. Rate chronic residuals according to impairment of function due to scars, lymphedema, or disfigurement (e.g., limitation of arm, shoulder, and wrist motion, or loss of grip strength, or loss of sensation, or residuals from harvesting of muscles for reconstructive purposes), and/or under diagnostic code 7626 7631 Benign neoplasms of the breast and other injuries of the breast. Rate chronic residuals according to impairment of function due to scars, lymphedema, or disfigurement (e.g., limitation of arm, shoulder, and wrist motion, or loss of grip strength, or loss of sensation, or residuals from harvesting of muscles for reconstructive purposes), and/or under diagnostic code 7626 7632 Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD) 1 0 1 Review for entitlement to special monthly compensation under § 3.350 of this chapter. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
    3. Amend appendix A to part 4 by: a. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7610, 7615, 7619, 7621, 7622, 7623, 7627, and 7628; and b. Adding, in numerical order, entries for diagnostic codes 7630 through 7632.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Part 4—Table of Amendments and Effective Dates Since 1946 Sec. Diagnostic code No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7610 Criterion May 22, 1995; title May 13, 2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7615 Criterion May 22, 1995; note May 13, 2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7619 Criterion May 22, 1995; note May 13, 2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7621 Criterion May 22, 1995; evaluation May 13, 2018. 7622 Removed May 13, 2018. 7623 Removed May 13, 2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7627 Criterion March 10, 1976; criterion May 22, 1995; title, note May 13, 2018. 7628 Added May 22, 1995; title, criterion May 13, 2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7630 Added May 13, 2018. 7631 Added May 13, 2018. 7632 Added May 13, 2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    4. Amend appendix B to part 4 by: a. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7610 and 7621; b. Removing the entries for diagnostic codes 7622 and 7623; c. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7627 and 7628; and d. Adding, in numerical order, entries for diagnostic codes 7630 through 7632.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 4—Numerical Index of Disabilities Diagnostic code No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the Breast 7610 Vulva or clitoris, disease or injury of (including vulvovaginitis). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7621 Complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury or disease or surgical complications of pregnancy. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7627 Malignant neoplasms of gynecological system. 7628 Benign neoplasms of gynecological system. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7630 Malignant neoplasms of the breast. 7631 Benign neoplasms of the breast and other injuries of the breast. 7632 Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    5. Amend appendix C to part 4 as follows: a. Add in alphabetical order an entry for “Complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury or disease or surgical complications of pregnancy, including uterine or vaginal vault prolapse, cystocele, urethrocele, rectocele, enterocele, or combination”. b. Add in alphabetical order an entry for “Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD)”. c. Under the heading “Injury,” add in alphabetical order an entry for “Breast”. d. Under the heading “Neoplasms: Benign:”: i. Add in alphabetical order an entry for “Breast”. ii. Remove “Gynecological or breast” and in its place add “Gynecological”. e. Under the heading “Neoplasms: Malignant:”: i. Add in alphabetical order an entry for “Breast”. ii. Remove “Gynecological or breast” and in its place add “Gynecological”. f. Remove the entry “Pregnancy, surgical complications”. g. Under the heading “Uterus,” remove the entry “Displacement”. h. Remove “Vulva disease or injury of” and add in its place “Vulva or clitoris, disease or injury of”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    Appendix C to Part 4—Alphabetical Index of Disabilities Diagnostic code No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Complete or incomplete pelvic organ prolapse due to injury or disease or surgical complications of pregnancy, including uterine or vaginal vault prolapse, cystocele, urethrocele, rectocele, enterocele, or combination 7621 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD) 7632 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Injury: *         *         *         *         *         *         * Breast 7631 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Neoplasms: Benign: Breast 7631 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Malignant: Breast 7630 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-07081 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0105; FRL-9976-48-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Missouri; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference; Correcting Amendments AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a final rule action published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2015, erroneously approved and codified previously removed entries; erroneously omitted the addition of previously approved entries; and erroneously published codification of previously revised entries. This technical amendment corrects the erroneous entries.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jan Simpson at (913) 551-7089, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46804), Federal Register final rule and notice of administrative change inadvertently and erroneously approved and codified previously removed Missouri regulations; omitted the addition of a previously approved regulation; and erroneously published incorrect state effective dates and citation information for previously approved entries.

    On October 21, 2014 (79 FR 62844), in a direct final rule, EPA approved a revision to “10-6.400”. The state effective date is 6/27/13.

    On March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11323), in a final rule, EPA approved a revision to remove the chapter titled “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and its entries for “50-2.010 through 50-2.420”. This final rule also approved the addition of “10-5.381”.

    On March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11577), EPA approved in a direct final rule a revision to remove the entry for “10-5.240” and approved revisions to Missouri regulations “10-6.010”, “10-6.020” and “10-6.040”. The state effective date of “10-6.010” is 7/30/14; the state effective date of “10-6.020” is 3/30/14; and the state effective date of “10-6.040” is 11/30/14.

    Therefore, we are correcting the EPA's regulations to remove “10-5.240”; add “10-5.381”; remove the chapter titled “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and its entries for “50-2.010 through 50-2.420”; and revise “10-6.010”, “10-6.020” and “10-6.040” to reflect the most currently approved dates and citations.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 27, 2018. Karen A. Flournoy, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    Accordingly, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. Amend § 52.1320(c) by: a. Removing the entry for “10-5.240”; b. Adding the entry for “10-5.381” in numerical order; c. Revising entries “10-6.010”, “10-6.020”, “10-6.040”, and “10-6.400”; and d. Removing the heading “Missouri Department of Public Safety, Division 50-State Highway Patrol, Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection” and the entries “50-2.010” through “50-2.420”.

    The addition and revisions read as follows:

    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-5.381 On-Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection 12/30/2012 3/3/2015, 80 FR 11323 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri 10-6.010 Ambient Air Quality Standards 7/30/2014 3/4/2015, 80 FR 11577 Hydrogen Sulfide and Sulfuric Acid state standards are not SIP approved. 10-6.020 Definitions and Common Reference Tables 3/30/2014 3/4/2015, 80 FR 11577 Many of the definitions pertain to Title V, 111(d) and asbestos programs and are approved in the SIP because they provide overall consistency in the use of terms in the air program. Similarly, the EPA has also approved this rule as part of the Title V program, and 111(d) even though many of the definitions pertain only to the SIP. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.040 Reference Methods 11/30/2014 3/4/2015, 80 FR 11577. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.400 Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter From Industrial Processes 6/27/2013 10/21/2014, 79 FR 62844. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-07216 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1016, 1018, 1019, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1037, 1090, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1120, 1132, 1133, 1135, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1147, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1177, 1180, 1182, 1184, 1185, 1200, 1220, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1253, 1305, 1310, 1312, 1313, 1319, 1331, and 1333 [Docket No. EP 746] Updating the Code of Federal Regulations AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Final rules.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is updating its regulations to reflect certain statutory changes enacted in the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 and to replace certain obsolete or incorrect references in the regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Fancher: (202) 245-0355. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In this decision, the Board is revising, correcting, and updating its regulations in 49 CFR ch. X. Some of these revisions are necessitated by changes made by the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015) (STB Reauthorization Act).

    This decision makes the following changes to the Board's regulations:

    • Eliminates or changes obsolete agency and/or office titles (e.g., 49 CFR 1105.7(b), 1152.50(d)(1)(ii));

    • corrects obsolete contact information (e.g., 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(5)(ii), 1182.3);

    • corrects references to United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations sections that have been moved 1 or are otherwise incorrect (e.g., 49 CFR 1244.9(d)(2), 1103.3(c)(2));

    1 The STB Reauthorization Act revised parts of the United States Code, including re-designating Chapter 7 of Title 49 of the Code as Chapter 13. STB Reauthorization Act sec. 3.

    • revises URL references to reflect the Board's new website 2 (e.g., 49 CFR 1001.1(d));

    2 As a result of the STB Reauthorization Act, the Board is no longer administratively housed in the Department of Transportation; therefore, the Board changed its website from “www.stb.dot.gov” to “www.stb.gov.”

    • revises the Board's regulations to reflect that the STB Reauthorization Act sec. 4 expanded the Board from three members to five members (49 CFR 1011.3); and

    • corrects an omitted subheading (49 CFR pt. 1248).

    Because these revisions are not substantive and/or relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, the Board finds good cause that notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) & (B).

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.

    These final rules do not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 1001

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Freedom of information.

    49 CFR Part 1003

    Common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1004

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 1005

    Claims, Freight, Investigations, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1007

    Privacy.

    49 CFR Part 1011

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    49 CFR Part 1012

    Sunshine Act.

    49 CFR Part 1013

    Common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Trusts and trustees.

    49 CFR Part 1016

    Claims, Equal access to justice, Lawyers.

    49 CFR Part 1018

    Claims, Income taxes.

    49 CFR Part 1019

    Conflict of interests.

    49 CFR Part 1033

    Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1034

    Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1035

    Maritime carriers, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1037

    Claims, Grains, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1090

    Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1100

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1101

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Lawyers.

    49 CFR Part 1104

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1105

    Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1106

    Administrative practice and procedure, Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad safety.

    49 CFR Part 1108

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1110

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1113

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1114

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1116

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1117

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1119

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1120

    Freight, Motor carriers, Uniform System of Accounts.

    49 CFR Part 1132

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1133

    Claims, Freight.

    49 CFR Part 1135

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1141

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    49 CFR Part 1144

    Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1146

    Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1147

    Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1150

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1152

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.

    49 CFR Part 1155

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Waste treatment and disposal.

    49 CFR Part 1177

    Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Maritime carriers, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1180

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1182

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 1184

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 1185

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1200

    Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.

    49 CFR Part 1220

    Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1242

    Railroads, Taxes.

    49 CFR Part 1243

    Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1244

    Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1245

    Railroad employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

    49 CFR Part 1246

    Railroad employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1247

    Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1248

    Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

    49 CFR Part 1253

    Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Pipelines, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1305

    Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 1310

    Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods.

    49 CFR Part 1312

    Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Pipelines, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1313

    Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Forests and forest products, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1319

    Freight forwarders.

    49 CFR Part 1331

    Buses, Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, Pipelines, Railroads.

    49 CFR Part 1333

    Penalties, Railroads.

    It is ordered:

    1. The rule modifications set forth below are adopted as final rules.

    2. This decision is effective May 2, 2018.

    Decided: March 27, 2018.

    By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.

    Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321, title 49, chapter X, parts 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1016, 1018, 1019, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1037, 1090, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1119, 1120, 1132, 1133, 1135, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1147, 1150, 1152, 1155, 1177, 1180, 1182, 1184, 1185, 1200, 1220, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1253, 1305, 1310, 1312, 1313, 1319, 1331, and 1333 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

    PART 1001—INSPECTION OF RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 1001 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 1302, and 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    § 1001.1 [Amended]
    2. In § 1001.1 (d), remove “www.stb.dot.gov” and add in its place “www.stb.gov”. PART 1003—FORMS 3. Revise the authority citation for part 1003 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f).

    PART 1004—INTERPRETATIONS AND ROUTING REGULATIONS 4. Revise the authority citation for part 1004 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1005—PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND VOLUNTARY DISPOSITION OF LOSS AND DAMAGE CLAIMS AND PROCESSING SALVAGE 5. Revise the authority citation for part 1005 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11706, 14706, 15906.

    PART 1007—RECORDS CONTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUALS 6. Revise the authority citation for part 1007 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1011—BOARD ORGANIZATION; DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 7. Revise the authority citation for part 1011 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321, 11123, 11124, 11144, 14122, and 15722.

    8. Amend § 1011.3 as follows: a. Revise the section heading. b. In paragraph (a)(1): i. Remove the citation to “49 U.S.C. 701(c)(1)” and add in its place “49 U.S.C. 1301(c)(1)”. ii. Remove the citation to “49 U.S.C. 701(c)(2)” and add in its place “49 U.S.C. 1301(c)(2)”. c. Revise paragraph (a)(3).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1011.3 The Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Board Members.

    (a) * * *

    (3) In the Chairman's absence, the Vice Chairman is acting Chairman, and has the authority and responsibilities of the Chairman. In the Vice Chairman's absence, the Chairman, if present, has the authority and responsibilities of the Vice Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, the Board may temporarily designate one of its members to act as Chairman and to have the authority and responsibilities of the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

    § 1011.7 [Amended]
    9. In § 1011.7 (a)(2)(ix), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”. PART 1012—MEETINGS OF THE BOARD 10. Revise the authority citation for part 1012 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552b(g), 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321.

    PART 1013—GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF VOTING TRUSTS 11. Revise the authority citation for part 1013 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f).

    PART 1016—SPECIAL PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY PARTIES TO BOARD ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS 12. Revise the authority citation for part 1016 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1), 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1018—DEBT COLLECTION 13. Revise the authority citation for part 1018 to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3701, 31 U.S.C. 3711 et seq., 49 U.S.C. 1321, 31 CFR parts 900-904.

    PART 1019—REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDUCT OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD EMPLOYEES 14. Revise the authority citation for part 1019 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1033—CAR SERVICE 15. Revise the authority citation for part 1033 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11121, 11122.

    PART 1034—ROUTING OF TRAFFIC 16. Revise the authority citation for part 1034 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11123.

    PART 1035—BILLS OF LADING 17. Revise the authority citation for part 1035 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11706, 14706.

    PART 1037—BULK GRAIN AND GRAIN PRODUCTS—LOSS AND DAMAGE CLAIMS 18. Revise the authority citation for part 1037 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1090—PRACTICES OF CARRIERS INVOLVED IN THE INTERMODAL MOVEMENT OF CONTAINERIZED FREIGHT 19. Revise the authority citation for part 1090 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1100—GENERAL PROVISIONS 20. Revise the authority citation for part 1100 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1101—DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION 21. Revise the authority citation for part 1101 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1103—PRACTITIONERS 22. Revise the authority citation for part 1103 to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 862; 49 U.S.C. 1303(c), 1321.

    § 1103.3 [Amended]
    23. In § 1103.3(c)(2), remove “21 U.S.C. 853a” and add in its place “21 U.S.C. 862”. PART 1104—FILING WITH THE BOARD—COPIES—VERIFICATION—SERVICE—PLEADINGS, GENERALLY 24. The authority citation for part 1104 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 18 U.S.C. 1621; and 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    § 1104.1 [Amended]
    25. In § 1104.1(e), remove “http://www.stb.dot.gov” and add in its place “www.stb.gov”. PART 1105—PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS 26. Revise the authority citation for part 1105 to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1456, and 1536; 42 U.S.C. 4332 and 6362(b); 49 U.S.C. 1301 note (1995) (Savings Provisions), 1321(a), 10502, and 10903-10905; 54 U.S.C. 306108.

    27. In § 1105.7(b), revise the concluding sentence to read as follows:
    § 1105.7 Environmental reports.

    (b) * * *

    For information regarding the names and addresses of the agencies to be contacted, interested parties may contact the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis.

    § 1105.10 [Amended]
    28. In § 1105.10: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA)”. b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the reference to “the Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “OEA”. c. In paragraph (b), remove the reference to “the Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “OEA”. d. In paragraph (g), remove the reference to “SEA” and add in its place “OEA”.
    § 1105.11 [Amended]
    29. In the appendix to § 1105.11, remove the reference to “SEA” and add in its place “OEA”.
    § 1105.12 [Amended]
    30. In the appendix to § 1105.12, in the Sample Local Newspaper Notice for Petitions for Abandonment Exemptions, remove the reference to “SEA” wherever it appears and add in its place “OEA”. PART 1106—PROCEDURES FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY INTEGRATION PLANS IN CASES INVOLVING RAILROAD CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS, AND ACQUISITIONS OF CONTROL 31. Revise the authority citation for part 1106 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 10101; 49 U.S.C. 11323-11325; 42 U.S.C. 4332.

    32. In § 1106.2: a. Remove the definition of Section of Environmental Analysis. b. Add a definition of Office of Environmental Analysis in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 1106.2 Definitions.

    Office of Environmental Analysis (“OEA”) means the Office that prepares the Board's environmental documents and analyses.

    § 1106.4 [Amended]
    33. In § 1106.4(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3), remove the reference to “SEA” wherever it appears and add in its place “OEA”. PART 1108—ARBITRATION OF CERTAIN DISPUTES SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY JURISDICTION OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 34. The authority citation for part 1108 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 11708, 49 U.S.C. 1321(a), and 5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.

    § 1108.3 [Amended]
    35. In § 1108.3(c), remove “www.stb.dot.gov” and add in its place “www.stb.gov”. PART 1110—PROCEDURES GOVERNING INFORMAL RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS 36. Revise the authority citation for part 1110 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1112—MODIFIED PROCEDURES 37. Revise the authority citation for part 1112 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1113—ORAL HEARING 38. Revise the authority citation for part 1113 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1114—EVIDENCE; DISCOVERY 39. The authority citation for part 1114 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 559; 49 U.S.C. 1321.

    § 1114.31 [Amended]
    40. In § 1114.31(b)(1), remove “49 U.S.C. 721(c)” and add in its place “49 U.S.C. 1321(c)”. PART 1116—ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE BOARD 41. Revise the authority citation for part 1116 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1117—PETITIONS (FOR RELIEF) NOT OTHERWISE COVERED 42. Revise the authority citation for part 1117 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1119—COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD DECISIONS 43. Revise the authority citation for part 1119 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1120—USE OF 1977-1978 STUDY OF MOTOR CARRIER PLATFORM HANDLING FACTORS 44. Revise the authority citation for part 1120 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 13701, 13703.

    PART 1132—PROTESTS REQUESTING SUSPENSION AND INVESTIGATION OF COLLECTIVE RATEMAKING ACTIONS 45. Revise the authority citation for part 1132 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 13301(f), and 13703.

    PART 1133—RECOVERY OF DAMAGES 46. Revise the authority citation for part 1133 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1135—RAILROAD COST RECOVERY PROCEDURES 47. Revise the authority citation for part 1135 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553, and 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10701, 10704, 10708, and 11145.

    PART 1141—PROCEDURES TO CALCULATE INTEREST RATES 48. Revise the authority citation for part 1141 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    PART 1144—INTRAMODAL RAIL COMPETITION 49. Revise the authority citation for part 1144 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10703, 10705, and 11102.

    PART 1146—EXPEDITED RELIEF FOR SERVICE EMERGENCIES 50. Revise the authority citation for part 1146 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11101, and 11123.

    PART 1147—TEMPORARY RELIEF UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10705 AND 11102 FOR SERVICE INADEQUACIES 51. Revise the authority citation for part 1147 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10705, 11101, and 11102.

    PART 1150—CERTIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE RAILROAD LINES 52. Revise the authority citation for part 1150 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 10502, 10901, and 10902.

    § 1150.1 [Amended]
    53. In § 1150.1(b), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”.
    § 1150.10 [Amended]
    54. In § 1150.10(g), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”.
    § 1150.36 [Amended]
    55. In § 1150.36: a. In paragraph (b), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA)” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA)”. b. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), remove the reference to “SEA” and add in its place “OEA”. c. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the reference to “SEA” wherever it appears and add in its place “OEA”. d. In paragraph (c)(4), remove the reference to “SEA's” and add in its place “OEA's”. e. In paragraph (d): i. Remove the reference to “SEA” wherever it appears and add in its place “OEA”. ii. Remove the reference to “SEA's” wherever it appears and add in its place “OEA's”. PART 1152—ABANDONMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF RAIL LINES AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10903 56. The authority citation for part 1152 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.

    § 1152.20 [Amended]
    57. In § 1152.20(a)(2)(vii), remove the reference to “Military Traffic Management Command” and add in its place “Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command”.
    § 1152.21 [Amended]
    58. In § 1152.21, remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” wherever it appears and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”.
    § 1152.22 [Amended]
    59. In § 1152.22(i), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” wherever it appears and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”.
    § 1152.50 [Amended]
    60. In § 1152.50(d)(1)(ii), remove the reference to “Military Traffic Management Command” and add in its place “Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command”.
    § 1152.60 [Amended]
    61. In § 1152.60(c), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” wherever it appears and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”. PART 1155—SOLID WASTE RAIL TRANSFER FACILITIES 62. Revise the authority citation for part 1155 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 10908, 10909, 10910.

    63. In Appendix A to part 1155, remove “http://www.stb.dot.gov” and add in its place “www.stb.gov”. PART 1177—RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS 64. Revise the authority citation for part 1177 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11301.

    PART 1180—RAILROAD ACQUISITION, CONTROL, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, TRACKAGE RIGHTS, AND LEASE PROCEDURES 65. Revise the authority citation for part 1180 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 11 U.S.C. 1172; 49 U.S.C. 1321, 10502, 11323-11325.

    § 1180.1 [Amended]
    66. In § 1180.1(f)(1): a. Remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA)” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA)”. b. Remove the reference to “SEA” and add in its place “OEA”. 67. In § 1180.4, revise paragraph (c)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 1180.4 Procedures.

    (c) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (ii) The Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    § 1180.6 [Amended]
    68. In § 1180.6(a)(8), remove the reference to “Section of Environmental Analysis” and add in its place “Office of Environmental Analysis”. PART 1182—PURCHASE, MERGER, AND CONTROL OF MOTOR PASSENGER CARRIERS 69. Revise the authority citation for part 1182 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 559; 21 U.S.C. 862; and 49 U.S.C. 13501, 13541(a), 13902(c), and 14303.

    § 1182.2 [Amended]
    70. In § 1182.2(a)(11), remove “21 U.S.C. 853a” and add in its place “21 U.S.C. 862”. (a)(2), remove “Chief, Lic. & Ins. Div., U.S.D.O.T. Office of Motor Carriers-HIA 30, 400 Virginia Ave. SW, Ste. 600, Washington, DC 20004” and add in its place “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Registration & Safety Information, Chief, Registration, Licensing & Insurance Division, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Mail Stop W65-331, Washington, DC 20590”.
    § 1182.3 [Amended]
    71. In § 1182.3(a)(2), remove “Chief, Lic. & Ins. Div., U.S.D.O.T. Office of Motor Carriers-HIA 30, 400 Virginia Ave. SW, Ste. 600, Washington, DC 20004” and add in its place “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Registration & Safety Information, Chief, Registration, Licensing & Insurance Division, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Mail Stop W65-331, Washington, DC 20590”.
    § 1182.8 [Amended]
    72. In § 1182.8(f), remove “Office of Motor Carriers of the U.S. Department of Transportation” and add in its place “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration”. PART 1184—MOTOR CARRIER POOLING OPERATIONS 73. Revise the authority citation for part 1184 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 14302.

    PART 1185—INTERLOCKING OFFICERS 74. Revise the authority citation for part 1185 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10502, and 11328.

    PART 1200—GENERAL ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT 75. Revise the authority citation for part 1200 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11142, 11143, 11144, 11145.

    PART 1220—PRESERVATION OF RECORDS 76. Revise the authority citation for part 1220 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11144, 11145.

    PART 1242—SEPARATION OF COMMON OPERATING EXPENSES BETWEEN FREIGHT SERVICE AND PASSENGER SERVICE FOR RAILROADS 77. Revise the authority citation for part 1242 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11142.

    PART 1243—QUARTERLY OPERATING REPORTS—RAILROADS 78. Revise the authority citation for part 1243 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145.

    PART 1244—WAYBILL ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY—RAILROADS 79. Revise the authority citation for part 1244 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.

    § 1244.4 [Amended]
    80. In § 1244.4(c)(1), remove “http://www.stb.dot.gov” and add in its place “www.stb.gov”.
    § 1244.9 [Amended]
    81. In § 1244.9: a. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), remove the reference to “§ 1244.8(e)” and add in its place “§ 1244.9(e)”. b. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the reference to “49 CFR 1224.8” and add in its place “49 CFR 1244.9”. c. In paragraph (h): i. Remove the reference to “Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC)” and add in its place “Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC)”. ii. Remove the reference to “MTMC's” and add in its place “SDDC's”. PART 1245—CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES; REPORTS OF SERVICE AND COMPENSATION 82. Revise the authority citation for part 1245 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145.

    PART 1246—NUMBER OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES 83. Revise the authority citation for part 1246 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145.

    PART 1247—REPORT OF CARS LOADED AND CARS TERMINATED 84. Revise the authority citation for part 1247 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10707, 11144, 11145.

    § 1247.1 [Amended]
    85. In § 1247.1, remove “http://www.stb.dot.gov” and add in its place “www.stb.gov”. PART 1248—FREIGHT COMMODITY STATISTICS 86. Revise the authority citation for part 1248 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 11144 and 11145.

    87. Designate §§ 1248.1 through 1248.6 as subpart A, and add a heading for subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—Railroads PART 1253—RATE-MAKING ORGANIZATION; RECORDS AND REPORTS 88. Revise the authority citation for part 1253 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10706, 13703, 11144, and 11145.

    PART 1305—DISCLOSURE AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF RATES AND OTHER SERVICE TERMS FOR PIPELINE COMMON CARRIAGE 89. Revise the authority citation for part 1305 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 15701(e).

    PART 1310—TARIFF REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS 90. Revise the authority citation for part 1310 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 13702(a), 13702(c) and 13702(d).

    PART 1312—REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLICATION, POSTING AND FILING OF TARIFFS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY OR WITH A WATER CARRIER IN NONCONTIGUOUS DOMESTIC TRADE 91. Revise the authority citation for part 1312 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a), 13702(a), 13702(b) and 13702(d).

    PART 1313—RAILROAD CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 92. Revise the authority citation for part 1313 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 10709.

    PART 1319—EXEMPTIONS 93. Revise the authority citation for part 1319 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321(a) and 13541.

    PART 1331—APPLICATIONS UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10706 AND 13703 94. Revise the authority citation for part 1331 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321, 10706 and 13703.

    PART 1333—DEMURRAGE LIABILITY 95. Revise the authority citation for part 1333 to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 1321.

    [FR Doc. 2018-06657 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    83 68 Monday, April 9, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 145, 146, and 147 [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0055] RIN 0579-AE37 National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) by updating and clarifying several provisions, including those concerning NPIP participation, voting requirements, testing procedures, and standards. These proposed changes were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the NPIP's 2016 National Plan Conference.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0055.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0055, 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-2017-0055 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. Denise Heard, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as “the Plan”) is a cooperative Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs.

    The Plan identifies States, independent flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.

    The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS or the Service) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan. The changes we are proposing, which are discussed below, were approved by the voting delegates at the Plan's 2016 Biennial Conference.

    Participants and voting delegates at the Biennial Conference represented the poultry industry, flockowners, breeders, hatcherymen, slaughter plants, poultry veterinarians, diagnostic laboratory personnel, Official State Agencies from cooperating States, and other poultry industry affiliates. The proposed amendments are discussed in the order they would appear in the regulations.

    Definitions

    The term NPIP Technical Committee is currently defined in § § 145.1, 147.41, and 147.51 as “A committee made up of technical experts on poultry health, biosecurity, surveillance, and diagnostics. The committee consists of representatives from the poultry and egg industries, universities, and State and Federal governments and is appointed by the Senior Coordinator and approved by the General Conference Committee.” We are proposing to amend the definition to specify that the committee is divided into three subcommittees (Mycoplasma, Salmonella, and Avian Influenza), and that committee members may serve on one, two, or all three of those subcommittees. For many technical committee members, belonging to all three subcommittees can be time consuming and daunting. Therefore, having the flexibility to serve on just one or two of the subcommittees if they so choose would allow members to focus their expertise on their specific disease areas. The amended definition would also explain more of the purpose of the committee, i.e., that it evaluates proposed changes to the regulations and program standards and provides recommendations to the Delegates of the National Plan Conference as to whether proposals are scientifically or technically sound. In addition to amending the definition in the sections where it currently appears in parts 145 and 147, we would also add the definition to part 146 for the sake of consistency across the regulations.

    Addition of Birds to Existing Flocks

    In § 145.4, paragraph (d) states that participants in the Plan may not buy or receive products for any purpose from nonparticipants unless they are part of an equivalent program, as determined by the Official State Agency. The regulations do, however, make an exception to that requirement by allowing participants to buy or receive products from flocks that are neither participants nor part of an equivalent program, for use in breeding flocks or for experimental purposes, with the permission of the Official State Agency (OSA) and the concurrence of APHIS and after first segregating the birds before introducing them into the breeding flock, and introducing them only after they have reached sexual maturity and have been tested and found negative for pullorum-typhoid.

    We are proposing to amend that testing requirement so that it includes testing not only for pullorum-typhoid, but also for any other disease for which the flock they are being introduced into holds a disease classification (e.g., M. gallisepticum or M. synoviae). As noted previously, breeding flocks must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs, hence the current requirement that birds test negative for pullorum-typhoid before being introduced into a flock. Requiring that they also test negative for any other disease for which the flock holds status would ensure that the flock maintains its eligibility for those other Plan programs.

    Testing

    The regulations in § 145.14 regarding testing state that for Plan programs in which a representative sample may be tested in lieu of an entire flock, except the ostrich, emu, rhea, and cassowary program in § 145.63(a), the minimum number tested shall be 30 birds per house, and when a house contains fewer than 30 birds, all the birds in the house must be tested. However, over the years a number of Plan programs have been amended to allow for alternative sampling and testing approaches. In order for the text of § 145.14 to not be at odds with the provisions governing those Plan programs, we would amend the introductory text of the section to include the caveat “unless otherwise specified within the Plan program.”

    We are also proposing to amend § 145.14(d) to add provisions for the use of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR) testing for avian influenza (AI) by primary breeder authorized laboratories. The current regulations provide that RRT-PCR testing must be conducted using reagents approved by the Department and the Official State Agency and using the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) official protocol for RRT-PCR and performed by personnel who have passed an NVSL proficiency test.

    We are proposing to allow NPIP primary breeder authorized laboratories to use federally licensed kits or NVSL tests on their own breeding flocks for more flexibility. An NPIP primary breeder authorized laboratory with an accredited quality assurance program that can satisfactorily pass a proficiency test provided by the Service using the NVSL approved protocol or federally licensed kit would be allowed to run this assay as a routine surveillance measure. An authorized laboratory's use of the test would be addressed in the memorandum of understanding between the laboratory, the Official State Agency, and the State Animal Health Official of the State or States where the laboratory and the breeding flocks are located. A follow-up of any positive results would continue to be handled by the Department and the Official State Agency and confirmed by NVSL.

    Reactors

    We are proposing to amend §§ 145.23, 145.33, 145.43, 145.53, 145.63, 145.73, 145.83, and 145.93 regarding the U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean classification. The regulations in each of these sections describe the means by which flocks may demonstrate freedom from pullorum and typhoid to the Official State Agency. One of those means is that the flock was officially blood tested with no reactors.

    In order to take into account the possibility of test results that indicate the presence of a reactor in the flock, but that upon further testing are found negative for S. pullorum or S. gallinarum, we are proposing to amend those sections. Specifically, the regulations would provide that a flock could demonstrate freedom from pullorum and typhoid when it has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of the regulations, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    Terminology

    We are proposing to amend the regulations in §§ 145.45, 145.74, and 145.84 regarding avian influenza clean compartments. These sections currently use the term notifiable avian influenza, or NAI, but that term has been removed from the World Health Organization (OIE) Terrestrial Code and Terrestrial Manual. We would instead refer to H5/H7 avian influenza to harmonize the regulations with current OIE terminology.

    Shipping Forms

    The regulations in § 145.52(d) set out the information that participating flocks are to provide in reporting poultry sales to importing States. One of the pieces of information required is the NPIP hatchery approval number of the selling hatchery. Because the hatchery that ships the poultry may differ from the hatchery filling the order, we would amend the paragraph to also require the NPIP hatchery approval number of the shipping hatchery. This would aid in traceback efforts should the need arise.

    Sampling Sites

    We are proposing to amend the regulations in § 145.53 regarding the U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean and U.S. M. Synoviae Clean classifications to add the trachea as a sampling site. The trachea is the best anatomical location to sample for those diseases, and both the choanal cleft and the trachea are recommended sampling sites for M. gallisepticum and M. synoviae detection by PCR and culture. As part of this change, we would remove references to the “choanal palatine cleft/fissure area” and simply refer to the choanal cleft for clarity's sake.

    Those same Plan classifications also provide instructions for the number of birds to be sampled. The current regulations in § 145.53(c) and (d) call for a random sample of 50 percent of the birds in the flock, with a maximum of 200 birds and a minimum of 30 birds per flock or all birds in the flock if the flock size is less than 30 birds. The phrasing of the sample sizes has been a source of confusion for some growers and field technicians who gather the samples, so we are proposing to modify the wording to provide more clarity. The actual sample sizes would remain the same.

    U.S. Salmonella Monitored

    We are proposing to amend § 145.73 by adding a new paragraph (g), entitled U.S. Salmonella Monitored. The primary egg-type breeder companies routinely monitor their flocks and chicks for all Salmonella serotypes with the goal of producing Salmonella-free product. The addition of a Salmonella Monitored program for primary egg-type breeder companies would formalize those efforts and provide recognition and potential additional marketing opportunities for flocks that choose to participate.

    The provisions of the new paragraph would mirror those of existing § 145.83(f), which is the U.S. Salmonella Monitored program for primary meat-type chicken breeding flocks. We would reflect this proposed program for primary egg-type chicken breeding flocks by adding a reference to § 145.73(g) to § 145.10(o), which is where the illustrative design for the U.S. Salmonella Monitored program is located.

    Biosecurity Measures

    The regulations in § 145.82 set out participation requirements for primary meat-type chicken breeding flocks. We are proposing to amend this section by adding a new paragraph (d) that would provide that poultry must be protected from vectors known to be in the wild and thus must be housed in enclosed structures during brooding, rearing, grow-out, or laying periods with no intentional access to the outdoors, creatures found in the wild or raised on open range or pasture, or be provided with untreated open source water such as that directly from a pond, stream, or spring that wild birds or vermin have access to for usage for drinking water, as a cooling agent, or during a wash down/clean out process. These additional biosecurity measures are intended to protect these flocks from the introduction of disease from natural sources.

    Sample Size

    We are proposing to amend § 146.23 to change the testing requirements for commercial table-egg laying flocks. The current regulations state that a sample of at least 11 birds from table-egg layer pullet flocks and table-egg layer flocks participating in the U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored classification must test negative to H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza within 30 days prior to movement. We would change that time period to 21 days.

    We are proposing this change to reflect the OIE's established maximum incubation period for avian influenza of 21 days. This change would also make the H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored program for commercial table-egg layers consistent with the corresponding programs for commercial broilers and turkeys.

    General Conference Committee

    We are proposing to amend § 147.43 to clarify election procedures for the regional committee members of the General Conference Committee. The current regulations simply state that regional committee members and their alternates will be elected by the official delegates of their respective regions; in practice, the nominee receiving the most votes would become the committee member and the nominee in second place would become the alternate. We are proposing to amend the regulations to specify that ballots will be printed to allow the regional delegates to cast a vote for the member and another vote for the alternate. This change would allow the region's delegates to specifically vote for their committee member and alternate rather than having the nominee with the second-most votes becoming the alternate by default.

    Committee Consideration of Proposed Changes

    The regulations in § 147.46 provide that various committees make recommendations to the conference as a whole concerning each proposal considered at the biennial conference. The individual committee reports are submitted to the chairman of the conference, who combines them into one report showing, in numerical sequence, the committee recommendations on each proposal. We are proposing to amend paragraph (d) of that section to provide that, after completing the combined report, the chairman will distribute copies of the report electronically to the Official State Agency in advance of the voting, which takes place on the last day of the conference. This would allow the OSA to in turn provide the full report to the delegates from their States, which would provide them more time to review and discuss the proposals and thus make more informed decisions when voting on the proposals.

    Authorized Laboratories

    We are proposing to amend § 147.52(a) regarding the administration of check tests at authorized laboratories. The regulations currently state that NPIP will coordinate the distribution of check tests from NVSL to authorized laboratories. An authorized laboratory must use a regularly scheduled check test for each assay that it performs.

    We are proposing to provide that the NPIP may approve and authorize additional laboratories to produce and distribute check tests as needed. This change would allow us to supplement the supply of check tests produced by NVSL with kits prepared by other approved laboratories, and NPIP and NVSL would work together to ensure that laboratory tests and submissions are accurate. We would also replace the current reference to “regularly scheduled” check tests with a reference to “the next available” check test. This more accurately describes the manner in which NPIP administers check tests to its authorized laboratories.

    Approval of Diagnostic Test Kits

    We are proposing to amend the regulations in § 147.54 regarding the approval of diagnostic test kits not licensed by the Service. First, we would amend paragraph (a)(1), which currently provides that spiked samples (clinical sample matrix with a known amount of pure culture added) should only be used in the event that no other sample types are available. (Field samples are preferred due to the often unrealistic outcomes of spiked samples.) In order to ensure that spiked samples are used only as a last resort, we would add a requirement that prior approval must be obtained from the NPIP Technical Committee. The NPIP Technical Committee is made up of technical experts on poultry health, biosecurity, surveillance, and diagnostics drawn from the poultry and egg industries, universities, and State and Federal governments, and therefore would be in a position to decide whether the use of spiked samples would be useful or appropriate under a given set of circumstances.

    Paragraph (a)(1) also states that when evaluating an unlicensed test, laboratories should be selected for their experience with testing for the target organism or analyte with the current NPIP approved test. For the sake of clarity, we would add an example of what is intended by that requirement. Specifically, we would add “(e.g., a Salmonella test should be evaluated by NPIP authorized laboratories that test for Salmonella routinely).”

    Paragraph (a)(3) provides that, when evaluating an unlicensed test kit, the cooperating laboratories must perform a current NPIP procedure or NPIP approved test on the samples alongside the test kit for comparison. We are proposing to amend that requirement to state that the cooperating laboratory must also provide an outline of the method on the worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation and include reproducibility and robustness data. This additional requirement would allow the NPIP Technical Committee to fully evaluate the new test utilizing a concise template for information. Currently, companies submit upwards 50 pages of raw data to the Technical Committee to evaluate in order to make a recommendation. The new worksheet is only two pages, and the company submitting the test would only insert the most pertinent information needed for the Technical Committee to evaluate that test. The supporting data would also be submitted along with the 2-page worksheet, but would only need to be referenced when something was not clear on the worksheet.

    Finally, the regulations in paragraph (a)(4) refer to “raw data” compiled during the evaluation of the unlicensed test kit. We are proposing instead to refer to “compiled output data.” This change would reduce the amount of information (raw data) that companies would need to submit to the Technical Committee with the worksheet described in the previous paragraph. By eliminating the need for companies to submit only their complied output data rather than all the data in its raw form, we would reduce by up to half the amount of information to be submitted, which would also benefit the Technical Committee reviewers.

    Editorial Correction

    The regulations in § 145.93 contains several references to paragraph (a) of that section, which is reserved. We would correct those references to cite paragraph (b).

    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. Further, because this 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 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).

    This rulemaking would result in various changes to 9 CFR parts 145 through 147, modifying provisions of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP). The modifications are recommended by the NPIP General Conference Committee (GCC), which represents cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members and advises the Secretary on issues pertaining to poultry health. The rule would amend definitions, clarify the final determination status of pullorum-typhoid reactors, clarify requirements prior to comingling, allow for the use of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RRT-PCR) for avian influenza surveillance under certain conditions, clarify testing requirements, update World Organization for Animal Health terminology, update testing requirements for M. gallisepticum and M. synoviae PCR testing, amend Form 9-31 requirements, add a U.S. Salmonella Monitored classification program, amend participation requirements, amend testing requirements for U.S. H5/H7 AI Monitored Classification Program, amend participation and voting requirements, amend Committee consideration of proposed changes, clarify check test proficiency requirements, and clarify requirements for new test submissions.

    These changes would align the regulations with international standards and make them more transparent to APHIS stakeholders and the general public. The changes in this proposed rule were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the Plan's 2016 Biennial Conference.

    The establishments that would be affected by the proposed changes—principally entities engaged in poultry production and processing—are predominantly small by Small Business Administration standards. In those instances in which an addition or modification could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. This proposed rule embodies changes decided upon by the NPIP GCC on behalf of Plan members, that is, changes recognized by the poultry industry as in their interest. We note that NPIP membership is voluntary.

    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 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 145, 146, and 147

    Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 as follows:

    PART 145—NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR BREEDING POULTRY 1. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    2. In § 145.1, the definition of NPIP Technical Committee is amended by adding three sentences after the last sentence to read as follows:
    § 145.1 Definitions.

    NPIP Technical Committee. * * * The NPIP Technical Committee is divided into three subcommittees (Mycoplasma, Salmonella, and Avian Influenza). NPIP Technical Committee Members may serve on one, two, or all three subcommittees. The committee will evaluate proposed changes to the Provisions and Program Standards of the Plan which include, but are not limited to, tests and sanitation procedures, and provide recommendations to the Delegates of the National Plan Conference as to whether they are scientifically or technically sound.

    § 145.4 [Amended]
    3. In § 145.4, paragraph (d)(2) is amended by adding the words “and any other disease for which the flock into which the birds are being introduced holds a disease classification” after the words “pullorum-typhoid”.
    § 145.10 [Amended]
    4. In § 145.10, paragraph (o) is amended by adding the citation “§ 145.73(g),” after the citation “§ 145.53(f),”. 5. Section 145.14 is amended as follows: a. In the introductory text, in the third sentence, by adding the words “unless otherwise specified within the Plan program,” after the words “30 birds per house,” and in the last sentence, by adding the words “, unless otherwise specified within the Plan program” after the words “must be tested”; and b. By revising paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 145.14 Testing.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) The RRT-PCR tests must be conducted using reagents approved by the Department and the Official State Agency. The RRT-PCR must be conducted using the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) official protocol for RRT-PCR or a test kit licensed by the Department and approved by the Official State Agency and the State Animal Health Official, and must be conducted by personnel who have passed an NVSL proficiency test. For non-National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) authorized laboratories:

    (1) RRT-PCR testing may be used by primary breeder company authorized laboratories.

    (2) RRT-PCR testing can only be performed on their own breeding flocks and only used for routine surveillance.

    (3) The authorized laboratory must have a quality system that is accredited as ISO/IEC 17025 or equivalent to perform the avian influenza RRT-PCR assay.

    (4) The use of the RRT-PCR test by the authorized laboratory must be approved in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the authorized laboratory, the Official State Agency, and the State Animal Health Official(s) of both the location of the authorized laboratory and the location where the breeding flocks reside.

    (5) Split samples for testing must occur between the authorized laboratory and a NAHLN laboratory at a frequency designated in the MOU.

    6. In § 145.23, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    § 145.23 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    7. In § 145.33, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    § 145.33 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    8. In § 145.43, paragraphs (b)(1) and (5) are revised to read as follows:
    § 145.43 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    (5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum: Provided, That a bacteriological examination monitoring program acceptable to the Official State Agency and approved by APHIS may be used in lieu of blood testing.

    9. Section 145.45 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and b. By removing the word “NAI” and adding the words “H5/H7 AI” in its place each time it appears in the following paragraphs: i. Paragraph (a)(1), introductory text; ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(i); iii. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii), introductory text; iv. Paragraph (a)(1)(v); v. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and vi. Paragraph (a)(4).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 145.45 Terminology and classification; compartments.

    (a) US H5/H7 AI Clean Compartment. This program is intended to be the basis from which the primary turkey breeding-hatchery industry may demonstrate the existence and implementation of a program that has been approved by the Official State Agency and APHIS to establish a compartment consisting of a primary breeding-hatchery company that is free of H5/H7 avian influenza (AI). For the purpose of the compartment, avian influenza is defined according to the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapter 10.4. This compartment has the purpose of protecting the defined subpopulation and avoiding the introduction and spread of H5/H7 AI within that subpopulation by prohibiting contact with other commercial poultry operations, other domestic and wild birds, and other intensive animal operations. The program shall consist of the following:

    10. Section 145.52 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(8) as paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9), respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (d)(7) to read as follows:
    § 145.52 Participation.

    (d) * * *

    (7) The NPIP hatchery approval number of the shipping hatchery;

    11. Section 145.53 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5); b. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), by adding the words “trachea or” before the word “choanal” and by removing the words “palatine cleft/fissure area” and adding the word “cleft” in their place. c. By revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii) introductory text; d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A), by adding the words “trachea or” before the word “choanal” and by removing the words “palatine cleft/fissure area” and adding the word “cleft” in their place; e. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by adding the words “trachea or” before the word “choanal” and by removing the words “palatine cleft/fissure area” and adding the word “cleft” in their place. f. By revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) introductory text; and g. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A), by adding the words “trachea or” before the word “choanal” and by removing the words “palatine cleft/fissure area” and adding the word “cleft” in their place.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 145.53 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    (5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum: Provided, That a bacteriological examination monitoring program or serological examination monitoring program for game birds acceptable to the Official State Agency and approved by the Service may be used in lieu of annual blood testing: And Provided further, That when a flock is a hobbyist or exhibition waterfowl or exhibition poultry primary breeding flock located in a State which has been deemed to be a U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean State for the past 3 years, and during which time no isolation of pullorum or typhoid has been made that can be traced to a source in that State, a bacteriological examination monitoring program or a serological examination monitoring program acceptable to the Official State Agency and approved by the Service may be used in lieu of annual blood testing.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) It is a multiplier breeding flock which originated as U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean baby poultry from primary breeding flocks and from which a random sample of birds has been tested for M. gallisepticum as provided in § 145.14(b) when more than 4 months of age or upon reaching sexual maturity. For flocks of more than 400 birds, 200 birds shall be tested. For flocks of 60 to 400 birds, 50 percent of the birds shall be tested. For flocks of fewer than 60 birds, all birds shall be tested up to a maximum of 30 birds: Provided, that to retain this classification, the flock shall be subjected to one of the following procedures:

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) It is a multiplier breeding flock that originated as U.S. M. Synoviae Clean chicks from primary breeding flocks and from which a random sample of birds has been tested for M. synoviae as provided in § 145.14(b) when more than 4 months of age or upon reaching sexual maturity. For flocks of more than 400 birds, 200 birds shall be tested. For flocks of 60 to 400 birds, 50 percent of the birds shall be tested. For flocks of fewer than 60 birds, all birds shall be tested up to a maximum of 30 birds: Provided, that to retain this classification, the flock shall be subjected to one of the following procedures:

    12. Section 145.63 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) as follows:
    § 145.63 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (a) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    (2) * * *

    (i)(A) It is a multiplier or primary breeding flock of fewer than 300 birds in which a sample of 10 percent of the birds in a flock or at least 1 bird from each pen, whichever is more, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum; or

    (B) It is a multiplier or primary breeding flock of 300 birds or more in which a sample of a minimum of 30 birds has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    13. Section 145.73 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii); and b. By adding paragraph (g).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 145.73 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    (2) * * *

    (ii) In the primary breeding flock, a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum: Provided, That a bacteriological examination monitoring program acceptable to the Official State Agency and approved by APHIS may be used in lieu of blood testing.

    (g) U.S. Salmonella Monitored. This program is intended to be the basis from which the primary egg-type breeder industry may conduct a program for the prevention and control of salmonellosis. It is intended to reduce the incidence of Salmonella organisms in hatching eggs and chicks through an effective and practical sanitation program at the breeder farm and in the hatchery. This will afford other segments of the poultry industry an opportunity to reduce the incidence of Salmonella in their products.

    (1) A flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it that have met the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency:

    (i) The flock is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter with respect to flock sanitation, cleaning and disinfection, and Salmonella isolation, sanitation, and management.

    (ii) Measures shall be implemented to control Salmonella challenge through feed, feed storage, and feed transport.

    (iii) Chicks shall be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.

    (iv) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples from the hatchery every 30 days; i.e., meconium or chick papers. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella shall examine the samples bacteriologically.

    (v) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter from each flock at 4 months of age and every 30 days thereafter. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella shall examine the environmental samples bacteriologically. All Salmonella isolates from a flock shall be serogrouped and shall be reported to the Official State Agency on a monthly basis.

    (vi) Owners of flocks may vaccinate with a paratyphoid vaccine: Provided, That a sample of 350 birds, which will be banded for identification, shall remain unvaccinated until the flock reaches at least 4 months of age to allow for the serological testing required under paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section.

    (vii) Any flock entering the production period that is in compliance with all the requirements of this paragraph (g) with no history of Salmonella isolations shall be considered “Salmonella negative” and may retain this definition as long as no environmental or bird Salmonella isolations are identified and confirmed from the flock or flock environment by sampling on four separate collection dates over a minimum of a 2-week period. Sampling and testing must be performed as described in paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of this section. An unconfirmed environmental Salmonella isolation shall not change this Salmonella negative status.

    (2) The Official State Agency may monitor the effectiveness of the sanitation practices in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.

    (3) In order for a hatchery to sell products of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section, all products handled shall meet the requirements of the classification.

    (4) This classification may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.

    § 145.74 [Amended]
    14. Section 145.74 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, in the first sentence, by removing the words “, also referred to as notifiable avian influenza (NAI)” and, in the second sentence, by removing the word “NAI” and adding the words “H5/H7 AI” in its place; and b. By removing the word “NAI” and adding the words “H5/H7 AI” in its place each time it appears in the following paragraphs: i. Paragraph (a)(1), introductory text; ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(i); iii. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii), introductory text; iv. Paragraph (a)(1)(v); v. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and vi. Paragraph (a)(4). 15. Section 145.82 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 145.82 Participation.

    (d) Poultry must be protected from vectors known to be in the wild and thus must be housed in enclosed structures during brooding, rearing, grow-out, or laying periods with no intentional access to the outdoors, creatures found in the wild, or raised on open range or pasture, or be provided with untreated open source water such as that directly from a pond, stream, or spring that wild birds or vermin have access to for usage for drinking water, as a cooling agent, or during a wash down/clean out process.

    16. Section 145.83 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 145.83 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    (2) * * *

    (ii) In the primary breeding flock, a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum: Provided, That a bacteriological examination monitoring program acceptable to the Official State Agency and approved by APHIS may be used in lieu of blood testing.

    § 145.84 [Amended]
    17. Section 145.84 is amended as follows: a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), in the first sentence, by removing the words “, also referred to as notifiable avian influenza (NAI)” and, in the second sentence, by removing the word “NAI” and adding the words “H5/H7 AI” in its place; and b. By removing the word “NAI” and adding the words “H5/H7 AI” in its place each time it appears in the following paragraphs: i. Paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(i); iii. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text; iv. Paragraph (a)(1)(v); v. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and vi. Paragraph (a)(4). 18. Section 145.93 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (b)(1); b. In paragraph (b)(3)(viii), by removing the words “paragraphs (a)(3)(i),” and adding the words “paragraphs (b)(3)(i),” in their place; c. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the words “paragraph (a)(3)” and adding the words “paragraph (b)(3)” in their place; and d. By revising paragraph (b)(5).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 145.93 Terminology and classification; flocks and products.

    (b) * * *

    (1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum.

    (5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate S. pullorum or S. gallinarum: Provided, That when a flock is a primary breeding flock located in a State which has been deemed to be a U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean State for the past 3 years, and during which time no isolation of pullorum or typhoid has been made that can be traced to a source in that State, a bacteriological examination monitoring program or a serological examination monitoring program acceptable to the Official State Agency and approved by the Service may be used in lieu of annual blood testing.

    PART 146—NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL POULTRY 19. The authority citation for part 146 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    20. In § 146.1, a definition of NPIP Technical Committee is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 146.1 Definitions.

    NPIP Technical Committee. A committee made up of technical experts on poultry health, biosecurity, surveillance, and diagnostics. The committee consists of representatives from the poultry and egg industries, universities, and State and Federal governments and is appointed by the Senior Coordinator and approved by the General Conference Committee. The NPIP Technical Committee is divided into three subcommittees (Mycoplasma, Salmonella, and Avian Influenza). NPIP Technical Committee Members may serve on one, two, or all three subcommittees. The committee will evaluate proposed changes to the Provisions and Program Standards of the Plan which include, but are not limited to, tests and sanitation procedures, and provide recommendations to the Delegates of the National Plan Conference as to whether they are scientifically or technically sound.

    § 146.23 [Amended]
    21. In § 146.23, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (2)(i) are amended by removing the number “30” and adding the number “21” in its place. PART 147—AUXILIARY PROVISIONS ON NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PLAN 22. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    23. In § 147.41, the definition of NPIP Technical Committee is amended by adding three sentences after the last sentence to read as follows:
    § 147.41 Definitions.

    NPIP Technical Committee. * * * The NPIP Technical Committee is divided into three subcommittees (Mycoplasma, Salmonella, and Avian Influenza). NPIP Technical Committee Members may serve on one, two, or all three subcommittees. The committee will evaluate proposed changes to the Provisions and Program Standards of the Plan which include, but are not limited to, tests and sanitation procedures, and provide recommendations to the Delegates of the National Plan Conference as to whether they are scientifically or technically sound.

    24. In § 147.43, paragraph (b) is amended by adding a sentence after the second sentence to read as follows:
    § 147.43 General Conference Committee.

    (b) * * * The ballots for electing regional committee members and their alternates will be printed in such a way as to allow the specific selection of one nominee for member, and one nominee for alternate from the remaining nominees. * * *

    25. In § 147.46, paragraph (d) is amended by adding a sentence after the last sentence to read as follows:
    § 147.46 Committee consideration of proposed changes.

    (d) * * * Once completed, the combined committee report will be distributed electronically to the Official State Agencies prior to the delegates voting on the final day of the biennial conference.

    26. In § 147.51, the definition of NPIP Technical Committee is amended by adding three sentences after the last sentence to read as follows:
    § 147.51 Definitions.

    NPIP Technical Committee. * * * The NPIP Technical Committee is divided into three subcommittees (Mycoplasma, Salmonella, and Avian Influenza). NPIP Technical Committee Members may serve on one, two, or all three subcommittees. The committee will evaluate proposed changes to the Provisions and Program Standards of the Plan which include, but are not limited to, tests and sanitation procedures, and provide recommendations to the Delegates of the National Plan Conference as to whether they are scientifically or technically sound.

    27. In § 147.52, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 147.52 Authorized laboratories.

    (a) Check-test proficiency. The NPIP will serve as the lead agency for the coordination of available check tests from the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. Further, the NPIP may approve and authorize additional laboratories to produce and distribute a check test as needed. The authorized laboratory must use the next available check test for each assay that it performs.

    28. In § 147.54, paragraphs (a)(1), (3), and (4) are revised to read as follows:
    § 147.54 Approval of diagnostic test kits not licensed by the Service.

    (a) * * *

    (1) The sensitivity of the kit will be evaluated in at least three NPIP authorized laboratories by testing known positive samples, as determined by the official NPIP procedures found in the NPIP Program Standards or through other procedures approved by the Administrator. Field samples, for which the presence or absence of the target organism or analyte has been determined by the current NPIP test, are the preferred samples and should be used when possible. Samples from a variety of field cases representing a range of low, medium, and high analyte concentrations should be used. In some cases it may be necessary to utilize samples from experimentally infected animals. Spiked samples (clinical sample matrix with a known amount of pure culture added) should only be used in the event that no other sample types are available. When the use of spiked samples may be necessary, prior approval from the NPIP Technical Committee is required. Pure cultures should never be used. Additionally, laboratories should be selected for their experience with testing for the target organism or analyte with the current NPIP approved test. (e.g., a Salmonella test should be evaluated by NPIP authorized laboratories that test for Salmonella routinely). If certain conditions or interfering substances are known to affect the performance of the kit, appropriate samples will be included so that the magnitude and significance of the effect(s) can be evaluated.

    (3) The kit will be provided to the cooperating laboratories in its final form and include the instructions for use. The cooperating laboratories must perform the assay exactly as stated in the supplied instructions. Each laboratory must test a panel of at least 25 known positive samples. In addition, each laboratory must test at least 50 known negative samples obtained from several sources, to provide a representative sampling of the general population. The cooperating laboratories must perform a current NPIP procedure or NPIP approved test on the samples alongside the test kit for comparison and must provide an outline of the method on the worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation. Reproducibility and robustness data should also be included.

    (4) Cooperating laboratories will submit to the kit manufacturer all compiled output data regarding the assay response. Each sample tested will be reported as positive or negative, and the official NPIP procedure used to classify the sample must be submitted in addition to the assay response value. A completed worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation is required to be submitted with the compiled output data and may be obtained by contacting the NPIP Senior Coordinator. Data and the completed worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation must be submitted to the NPIP Senior Coordinator 4 months prior to the next scheduled General Conference Committee meeting, which is when approval will be sought.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of April 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07076 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FDA-2018-C-1007] Aker BioMarine; Filing of Color Additive Petition AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Aker BioMarine, proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of Antarctic krill meal which is composed of the ground and dried tissue of Euphausia superba, for use in the feed of salmonid fish. The use would enhance the color of the salmonid fish flesh.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's environmental assessment by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of May 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 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-2018-C-1007 for “Aker BioMarine; Filing of Color Additive Petition.” 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:

    Stephen DiFranco, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2710.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 5C0303), submitted by Aker BioMarine, c/o Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy (Aker BioMarine), Rm. 1036, Building A8 Cody Technology Park, Ively Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, UK. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73) Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification to provide for the safe use of Antarctic krill meal which is composed of the ground and dried tissue of Euphausia superba, for use in the feed of salmonid fish. The use of such feed would enhance the color of the salmonid fish flesh.

    We are reviewing the potential environmental impact of this petition. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), we are placing the environmental assessment submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) for public review and comment.

    We will also place on public display, in the Dockets Management Staff and at https://www.regulations.gov, any amendments to, or comments on, the petitioner's environmental assessment without further announcement in the Federal Register. If, based on our review, we find that an environmental impact statement is not required, and this petition results in a regulation, we will publish the notice of availability of our finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding with the regulation in the Federal Register in accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b).

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07155 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2018-0005; Notice No. 174] RIN 1513-AC38 Proposed Establishment of the Upper Hudson Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 1,500-square mile “Upper Hudson” viticultural area in all or portions of Albany, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Washington Counties in New York. The proposed viticultural area does not lie within, nor does it contain, any other established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on this proposed rule to one of the following addresses:

    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this proposed rule as posted within Docket No. TTB-2018-0005 at “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal);

    U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or

    Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    See the Public Participation section of this proposed rule for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or request copies of the petition and supporting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists of the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Upper Hudson Petition

    TTB received a petition from Andrew and Kathleen Weber, owners of Northern Cross Vineyard, on behalf of local grape growers and vintners, proposing to establish the approximately 1,500-square mile “Upper Hudson” AVA. Nineteen commercial vineyards, covering approximately 67.5 acres, are distributed across the proposed AVA. According to the petition, several vineyard owners are planning to expand their vineyards by a total of 14 additional acres in the near future, and 4 new vineyards are also planned. All 19 of the vineyards within the proposed AVA also have attached wineries.

    The distinguishing feature of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA is its climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this proposed rule comes from the petition for the proposed Upper Hudson AVA and its supporting exhibits.

    Name Evidence

    The proposed Upper Hudson AVA is located along the Hudson River. According to the petition, the term “Upper Hudson” is used to describe the non-tidal portion of the river above the Federal Dam in Troy, New York. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey has a web page with information about the Hudson River watershed in the region of the proposed AVA titled “USGS Water Resources Links for the Upper Hudson.” 1 The petition also included a “USA Today” article about kayaking trips within the region that includes the proposed AVA and is titled “Kayaking in the Upper Hudson.” 2

    1http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getwatershed?02020001.

    2http://traveltips.usatoday.com/kayaking-upper-hudson-61158.html.

    The petition included a listing of organizations and businesses within the proposed AVA that use the name “Upper Hudson.” The Phi Beta Kappa fraternal organization 3 , and the Editorial Freelancers Association 4 both have chapters within the proposed boundaries of the AVA referred to as “Upper Hudson.” The Upper Hudson Green Party and the Upper Hudson Peace Action are two other organizations located within the proposed AVA. The Upper Hudson Research Center provides laboratory and field station facilities within the proposed AVA for researchers of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who study freshwater habitats. Medical facilities within the proposed AVA include Upper Hudson Dermatology and Upper Hudson Primary Care. Finally, Upper Hudson Farm Direct provides deliveries of fresh produce from farms within the region of the proposed AVA.

    3http://uhpbk.org.

    4www.the-efa.org/chp/?chp=upperhudson.

    Boundary Evidence

    The proposed Upper Hudson AVA includes all or portions of Albany, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Washington Counties in New York. The proposed boundaries follow a series of roads and rivers. To the east of the proposed AVA are the foothills of the Taconic Mountains, which have higher elevations and cooler growing season temperatures than the proposed AVA. To the south of the proposed AVA is the region known as the Lower Hudson River Valley, which includes the established Hudson River Region AVA (27 CFR 9.47). This region has warmer annual temperatures than the proposed AVA, due to the tidal nature of the lower portion of the Hudson River. To the west of the proposed AVA are the Adirondack and Allegheny Mountains, which have higher elevations and cooler annual temperatures than the proposed AVA. To the north of the proposed AVA are the valleys of Lake George and Lake Champlain, where growing season temperatures are generally warmer due to the moderating effects of the lakes.

    Distinguishing Features

    The distinguishing feature of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA is its climate. The petition included information on the USDA plant hardiness zones and the growing degree day accumulations (GDDs) 5 for the proposed AVA and the surrounding areas.

    5 In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual growing degree days (GDDs), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2d ed. 1974), pages 61-64.

    Plant Hardiness Zones

    The USDA plant hardiness zone map included in the petition divides the United States into zones based on the average annual minimum winter temperature. The map is divided into 13 zones, from the coolest zone 1 to the warmest zone 13. Each zone has a 10-degree Fahrenheit (F) range and is further divided into two 5-degree F sub-zones, which are designated “a” and “b”. According to the map, the proposed Upper Hudson AVA falls into zones 5a and 5b. Average minimum temperatures in these zones range from −20 to −15 degrees F. The petition states that these average minimum winter temperatures are cold enough to damage or even kill many varietals of grapes. Therefore, vineyard owners within the proposed AVA plant cold-hardy varietals such as Marquette, Frontenac, La Crescent, and La Crosse, which have been developed to withstand temperatures as low as −30 degrees.

    The plant hardiness zone map shows that the regions to the immediate east and west of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA are also classified as zones 5a and 5b. However, the Adirondack and Allegheny mountains farther to the west and northwest of the proposed AVA are classified as zones 3b, 4a, and 4b, meaning that average minimum temperatures in the region are between −35 and −25 degrees F.

    The region south of the proposed AVA, which includes the established Hudson River Region AVA, is classified as zones 6a and 6b, with average minimum temperatures between −10 and 0 degrees F. According to the petition, grape varietals commonly grown within the established Hudson River Region AVA include Seyval Blanc, Baco Noir, Cabernet Franc, Pinot Noir, Vignoles, and Traminette. The petition states that according to research conducted at several universities, most of these varietals are cold hardy to −15 degrees F, while Pinot Noir is cold hardy only to −8 degrees F. Because winter temperatures within the proposed Upper Hudson AVA regularly drop as low as −20 degrees, these varietals would not be suitable for growing within the proposed AVA.

    Growing Degree Days

    The petition included a graph showing the average GDD accumulations for 19 locations within the proposed AVA and the surrounding areas. Six of these locations are within the proposed AVA, and the remainder are from the surrounding areas. The graph may be viewed in its entirety on Regulations.gov as part of the public docket, Docket No. TTB-2018-0005. The following table lists only the locations in the graph for which at least 3 years of data was available, as well as the location's direction relevant to the proposed AVA.

    Locations With GDD Data Available From 2012-2014 Location Direction from Proposed AVA Ticonderoga, NY North. Rutland, VT Northeast. East Dorset, VT East. North Adams, MA Southeast. Pittsfield, MA Southeast. Castleton, NY South. Hudson, NY South. Cobleskill, NY Southwest. North Blenheim, NY Southwest. Gloversville, NY West. Bennington, VT West. Clifton Park, NY Within. Melrose, NY Within. Schoharie, NY Within. Guilderland, NY Within. Glens Falls, NY Within.

    The graph included in the petition shows that the locations within the proposed AVA achieved GDD accumulations ranging between 2,300 and 2,700. Guilderland, Melrose, Clifton Park, and Schoharie all had GDD accumulations of over 2,500, which is generally considered to be the minimum GDD accumulations needed to ripen most varietals of grapes 6 . Glens Falls, which is located at the northernmost boundary of the proposed AVA, is shown as having slightly fewer than 2,500 GDDs. According to the petition, the locations within the proposed AVA reach 2,500 GDDs late in September, meaning that the fruit typically has only a few weeks to continue maturing before the first frost sets in. The petition states that, as a result, wineries often must work with tart fruit and remove the tartness as part of the winemaking process through the use of Malolactic fermentation, pH adjustment, or residual sugars.

    6 See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2d ed. 1974), pages 61-64, 143.

    By contrast, the graph shows that the locations to the north and south of the proposed AVA have GDD accumulations over 2,700. Ticonderoga is located on the shore of Lake Champlain, and Hudson and Castleton are both located along the tidal portion of the Hudson River. Hudson, the southernmost location shown on the graph, has the highest GDD accumulation of any location depicted in the graph, with just over 2,900. According to the petition, the warming effects of both Lake Champlain and the tidal portion of the Hudson River contribute to the higher GDD accumulations in the regions north and south of the proposed AVA. The graph also shows that these locations all reach 2,500 GDDs earlier in September than the locations within the proposed AVA. The petition states that grapes in these warmer regions have more time to mature before the first frost, so the grapes “have the tartness removed in the vineyard.”

    The remaining locations, to the east, southeast, southwest, and west of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA, all have lower GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA. Of these locations, North Adams and Bennington have the highest GDD accumulations, with just over 2,300. Gloversville had the lowest, with just over 1,700. The petition shows that viticulture in these regions would be difficult because the GDD accumulations would not reach the levels necessary to reliably ripen most varietals of grapes.

    Summary of Distinguishing Features

    In summary, the evidence provided in the petition indicates that the climate of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA distinguishes it from the surrounding regions in each direction. The proposed AVA has lower GDD accumulations than the regions to the north and south, which benefit from the warming influence of Lake Champlain and the tidal portion of the Hudson River. The region to the south is also classified in a warmer plant hardiness zone. The proposed AVA has higher GDD accumulations than the regions to the east and west and is also classified in a warmer plant hardiness zone than the region to the west. As a result of its climate, the proposed Upper Hudson AVA is suitable for growing cold-hardy grape hybrids, but not the grape varietals that are commonly grown farther south within the established Hudson River Region AVA.

    TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 1,500-square mile Upper Hudson AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this proposed rule.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

    If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Upper Hudson,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers using the name “Upper Hudson” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.

    Public Participation Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.

    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Upper Hudson AVA on wine labels that include the term “Upper Hudson,” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

    Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this proposed rule by using one of the following three methods (please note that TTB has a new address for comments submitted by U.S. Mail):

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this proposed rule within Docket No. TTB-2018-0005 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 174 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab.

    U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this proposed rule. Your comments must reference Notice No. 174 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.

    In your comment, please clearly indicate if you are commenting on your own behalf or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

    Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this proposed rule, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2018-0005 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 174. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's “Help” tab.

    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.

    You may also view copies of this proposed rule, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at (202) 453-2265 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.__ to read as follows:
    § 9.__ Upper Hudson.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Upper Hudson”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Upper Hudson” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Upper Hudson viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Glens Falls, New York—Vermont, 1989;

    (2) Albany, New York—Massachusetts—Vermont, 1989;

    (3) Amsterdam, New York, 1985; photoinspected 1990; and

    (4) Gloversville, New York, 1985; photoinspected 1992;

    (c) Boundary. The Upper Hudson viticultural area is located in Albany, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Washington Counties in New York. The boundary of the Upper Hudson viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The point of the beginning is on the Glens Falls map at the intersection of U.S. Highway 9 and State Highway 32, in Glens Falls. From the beginning point, proceed east on State Highway 32 to its intersection with State Highway 254; then

    (2) Proceed southeasterly along State Highway 254 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 4 in Hudson Falls; then

    (3) Proceed south along U.S. Highway 4 to its intersection with State Highway 197 in Fort Edward; then

    (4) Proceed east, then southeast along State Highway 197 to its intersection with State Highway 40 in Argyle; then

    (5) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the intersection of State Highway 29 and State Highway 22 in Greenwich Junction; then

    (6) Proceed south along State Highway 22, crossing onto the Albany map, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 7 in Hoosick; then

    (7) Proceed southwest along State Highway 7, crossing the Hudson River, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 32 in Green Island; then

    (8) Proceed south on State Highway 32 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 20 in Albany; then

    (9) Proceed west on U.S. Highway 20 its intersection with U.S. Highway 9; then

    (10) Proceed southwest along U.S. Highway 9 to its intersection with State Highway 443; then

    (11) Proceed southwest, then westerly along State Highway 443, crossing onto the Amsterdam map, to the highway's intersection with an unnamed state highway known locally as State Highway 30 in Vroman Corners; then

    (12) Proceed northwesterly along State Highway 30 to its intersection with State Highway 30A in Sidney Corners; then

    (13) Proceed north along State Highway 30A, crossing over the Mohawk River, to the highway's intersection with State Highway 5 in Fonda; then

    (14) Proceed east along State Highway 5 to its intersection with State Highway 67 in Amsterdam; then

    (15) Proceed east along State Highway 67 to its intersection with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Morrow Road; then

    (16) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing over the southeastern corner of the Gloversville map and onto the Glens Falls map, to the point where Daly Creek empties into Great Sacandaga Lake; then

    (17) Proceed northeast, then east along the southern shore of Great Sacandaga Lake to its confluence with the Hudson River in the town of Lake Luzerne; then

    (18) Proceed south, then easterly along the southern bank of the Hudson River to its intersection with U.S. Highway 9 in South Glens Falls; then

    (19) Proceed northwest along U.S. Highway 9, crossing the Hudson River, and returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: November 30, 2017. John J. Manfreda Administrator. Approved: March 30, 2018. Timothy E. Skud Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2018-07210 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 31 CFR Parts 30 and 32 Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations AGENCY:

    Departmental Offices, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the policies stated in Executive Order 13777 (the executive order), the Treasury Department conducted a review of existing regulations, with the goal of reducing regulatory burden by revoking or revising existing regulations that meet the criteria set forth in the executive order. This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to streamline our regulations by removing one regulation that is no longer necessary because it does not have any current or future applicability, and by amending one regulation to remove portions that no longer have any current or future applicability.

    DATES:

    Comment due date: June 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or by mail to: The Treasury Department, Attn: Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area may be subject to delay, it is recommended that comments be submitted electronically. Please include your name, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number in your comment. Comments will be available for public inspection on www.regulations.gov. In general, comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are available to the public. Do not submit any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurie Adams, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance at (202) 927-8727 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (82 FR 12285). E.O. 13777 directed each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force. Each Regulatory Reform Task Force was directed to review existing regulations for regulations that: (i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) impose costs that exceed benefits; (iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; (v) are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001) or OMB Information Quality Guidance issued pursuant to that provision; or (vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.

    This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to remove one regulation and portions of a second regulation that have no current or future applicability and, therefore, no longer provide useful guidance. Removing these regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations will streamline Title 31, Money and Finance: Treasury; and increase clarity of the law. These regulations are proposed to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations solely because the regulations are outdated and unnecessary.

    Explanation of Provisions

    The regulations, or portions of regulations, proposed to be removed relate to components of Treasury programs that are no longer in existence. They are: TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance, 31 CFR part 30. The regulations in 31 CFR part 30 set forth standards for the compensation of executives of companies that received capital from Treasury as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) developed under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.). Portions of this rule relate to “exceptional financial assistance” that was provided to some of the largest financial institutions in the United States under programs specifically created for those institutions. Other portions of the rule established and provided authority to the Office of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation (Special Master). The Special Master was given authority to approve certain payments to employees of TARP recipients receiving exceptional financial assistance, review payments to employees made prior to February 17, 2009, and issue advisory opinions on compensation to TARP recipients.

    The TARP program has largely wound down and there are no recipients of exceptional financial assistance left in the TARP program. Additionally, the Special Master had the opportunity to review compensation made prior to February 17, 2009. Given the absence of exceptional financial assistance entities and the current status of the TARP program, the Office of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation no longer has any employees. Thus, Treasury proposes that Section 30.16 of 31 CFR part 30 be removed.

    Payments in Lieu of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (31 CFR Part 32)

    The regulation in 31 CFR part 32 sets forth Treasury's policy regarding the time limitation within which State housing credit agencies must disburse funds received under section 1602 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. This rule allowed States to disburse section 1602 funds to subawardees through December 31, 2011 under certain conditions.

    Treasury no longer awards section 1602 funds to State housing credit agencies. Thus, Treasury proposes to remove 31 CFR part 32 because no State housing credit agencies hold section 1602 funds and because the time period for disbursement of section 1602 funds to subawardees has expired.

    Procedural Matters

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. The undersigned certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that this rule would remove outdated and unnecessary regulations and therefore would have no economic impact on any small entities. Accordingly, an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Notwithstanding this certification, the Department invites comments on any impact this rule would have on small entities.

    List of Subjects 31 CFR Part 30

    Securities.

    31 CFR Part 32

    Housing, taxes.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 31 CFR parts 30 and 32 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 30—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5221; 31 U.S.C. 321.

    § 30.16 [Removed]
    2. Section 30.16 is removed. PART 32—PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS [REMOVED] 3. Part 32 is removed. Ryan Brady, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07102 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1054] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend its notice of proposed rulemaking and reopen the public comment period for a special local regulation for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, during the Bay Bridge Paddle on June 2, 2018 (rain date of June 3, 2018) published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1054 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on January 12, 2018 (83 FR 1597), proposing to establish a special local regulation for the Bay Bridge Paddle, on June 2, 2018 (rain date of June 3, 2018). The comment period closed February 12, 2018. The Coast Guard received one comment on the original request for comments.

    Subsequent to the Coast Guard publishing the notice of proposed rulemaking, ABC Events, Inc., notified the Coast Guard that as a result of a meeting with the bridge authority a change of the elite paddler race course location is necessary. We are issuing this supplemental proposal to amend the proposed special local regulation to increase the size of the paddle race area, and reopen the comment period to account for this change. The Coast Guard will accept and review any comments received between the close of the comment period and the publication of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would create a temporary special local regulation on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay for the Bay Bridge Paddle. This special local regulation would expand the proposed regulated area northward of the north bridge (westbound span) of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges from that area described in the original published notice of proposed rulemaking. Bridge rehabilitation work along the eastern portion of the north bridge (westbound span) of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges includes the placement of barges and other marine equipment in the waterway. Allowing the proposed paddling event to proceed along its original race course would adversely affect both the bridge work activities and event participants. The expanded area allows the event planner an alternative to mitigate the risk posed to event participants by altering the race course northward of that area.

    The revised proposed regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N, longitude 076°23′47.93″ W; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N, longitude 076°22′40.24″ W; thence southeastward to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N, longitude 076°19′58.40″ W; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N, longitude 076°24′28.36″ W; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N, longitude 076°23′59.67″ W; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N, longitude 076°23′25.53″ W; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N, longitude 076°20′10.45″ W, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. paddle race event.

    All other regulatory provisions in the original proposed rulemaking remain the same. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Chesapeake Bay for six hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the COTP Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of a temporary special local regulation lasting for 6 hours. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

    2. Add § 100.501T05-1054 to read as follows:
    § 100.501T05-1054 Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N, longitude 076°23′47.93″ W; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N, longitude 076°22′40.24″ W; thence southeastward to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N, longitude 076°19′58.40″ W; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N, longitude 076°24′28.36″ W; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N, longitude 076°23′59.67″ W; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N, longitude 076°23′25.53″ W; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N, longitude 076°20′10.45″ W, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. All coordinates reference North American Datum 83 (NAD 1983).

    (b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the Bay Bridge Paddle event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The COTP or Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any support vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.

    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, vessels or persons seeking permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.

    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).

    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018, and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 3, 2018.

    Dated: April 4, 2018. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07196 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0093] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters located at Cambridge, MD during a swim event on May 20, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0093 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

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

    On January 4, 2018, Cambridge Multi Sport of Cambridge, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Maryland Freedom Swim from 7:30 a.m. until 9 a.m. on May 20, 2018. Details of the planned event were provided by the sponsor to the Coast Guard on February 5, 2018. The open water swim consists of approximately 200 participants competing on a designated 1.75-mile linear course that starts at the beach of Bill Burton Fishing Pier State Park at Trappe, MD, proceeds across the Choptank River along and between the fishing piers and the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. Memorial (U.S.-50) Bridge, and finishes at the beach of the Dorchester County Visitors Center at Cambridge, MD. Hazards from the swim competition include participants swimming within and adjacent to the designated navigation channel and interfering with vessels intending to operate within that channel, as well as swimming within approaches to local public and private marinas and public boat facilities. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event or for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Choptank River.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on specified waters of the Choptank River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations from 7 a.m. through 9:30 a.m. on May 20, 2018. There is no alternate date planned for this event. The regulated area would include all navigable waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′14.2″ N, longitude 076°02′33.0″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′08.3″ N, longitude 076°03′36.2″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′32.7″ N, longitude 076°02′58.3″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′24.7″ N, longitude 076°04′01.3″ W, located at Cambridge, MD. The regulated area is approximately 2,800 yards in length and 900 yards in width. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of event participants and vessels within the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. swim. Except for Maryland Freedom Swim participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, time of day and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Choptank River for 2.5 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessel operators to request permission to enter the regulated area for the purpose of safely transiting the regulated area if deemed safe to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 2.5 hours. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

    2. Add § 100.501T05-0093 to read as follows:
    § 100.501T05-0093 Special local regulation, Choptank River, Cambridge, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:

    (1) Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the Maryland Freedom Swim event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (b) Location. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′14.2″ N, longitude 076°02′33.0″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′08.3″ N, longitude 076°03′36.2″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′32.7″ N, longitude 076°02′58.3″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′24.7″ N, longitude 076°04′01.3″ W, located at Cambridge, MD. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The COTP or Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any support vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented shall depart the regulated area.

    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessel operators may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, persons or vessel operators may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).

    (4) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio.

    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 9:30 a.m. on May 20, 2018.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07109 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 48 CFR Parts 2402, 2416, 2437, 2442, and 2452 [Docket No. FR-6041-P-01] RIN 2501-AD85 HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would amend the HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) to implement miscellaneous changes. These changes include incorporation of several clauses and associated additions to the HUDAR matrix, replacement of references to Government Technical Representatives (GTRs) with references to Contracting Officer's Representatives (CORs), codification of deviations approved by HUD's Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) and minor corrections to clauses, provisions, and the HUDAR matrix.

    DATES:

    Comment due date: June 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications and comment submissions must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make comments immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. To submit comments electronically, commenters should follow the instructions provided on the website.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Akinsola A. Ajayi, Acting Assistant Chief Procurement Officer for Policy, Systems and Risk Management, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-0294 (this is not a toll-free number), fax number 202-708-8912. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access Dr. Ajayi's telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The uniform regulation for the procurement of supplies and services by Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), was promulgated on September 19, 1983 (48 FR 42102). The FAR is codified in title 48, chapter 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. HUD promulgated its regulation to implement the FAR on March 1, 1984 (49 FR 7696).

    The HUDAR (title 48, chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is prescribed under section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)); section 205(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 121(c)); and the general authorization in FAR 1.301. HUDAR was last revised by final rule published on March 15, 2016 (81 FR 13747).

    II. This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would amend the HUDAR, 48 CFR chapter 24, to propose revising all clause and provision references to the Government Technical Representative or GTR to Contracting Officer's Representative or COR. Accordingly, the definition in 48 CFR 2402.101 of “Government Technical Representative” would be removed. Also, the obsolete term “Government Technical Monitor” would be removed. HUD is also proposing to codify certain agency-specific clauses, include class deviations in certain clauses, and make several administrative, nonsubstantive corrections, such as typographical corrections and updated applicability dates.

    In part 2416, the rule would correct the prescription for 2416.506-70 to change “provision” to “clause,” instruct the Contracting Officer to insert the clause at 2452.216-77, add prescriptions for clause 2452.216-81 and provision 2452.216-82 to codify agency-specific clauses. These clauses relate to estimated quantities, level of effort and fee payment, and labor categories.

    In part 2437, the rule would revise 2437.110(e) to add prescriptions for provision 2452.237-82 and clause 2452.237-83 relating to controlled unclassified information to codify a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on June 18, 2015.

    In part 2442, the rule would revise 2442.1107 to codify a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on April 1, 2016, to (1) revise the procurement instruments, types of contracts, and types of services being acquired to those to which the clause will be applicable, (2) adjust the threshold at which the clause becomes applicable, and (3) make other minor changes.

    In part 2452, the rule would:

    Make minor typographical, nonsubstantive corrections to clauses 2452.203-70, 2452.208-71, 2452.215-70, 2452.216-80, 2452.219-72, 2452.232-70, and 2452.242-71;

    Change references to Government Technical Representative or GTR to Contracting Officer's Representative or COR respectively;

    Add clause 2452.216-81, Level of Effort and Fee Payment, and clause 2452.216-82, Labor Categories, Requirements, and Estimated Level of Effort. These are previously agency-specific clauses that HUD now wishes to codify. Clause 2452.216-81 provides contractors with the total level of effort to be provided and the method for calculating the fee. Clause 2452.216-82 provides estimated hours and labor categories to assist vendors in developing proposals for immediate requirements; these estimates are not binding upon the Government;

    Codify a class deviation approved by the CPO on October 19, 2016, to clause 2452.232-71 at paragraph (b)(2) to require contractors to provide supporting documentation with vouchers that adequately prove the legitimacy and compliance of costs claimed, and the ability to appropriately allocate costs claimed;

    Revise clause 2452.237-73 to remove the second sentence of paragraph (b). In the current codification, that sentence relates to notification of a change in status of the Government Technical Representative;

    Add provision 2452.237-82, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), pursuant to a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on June 18, 2015;

    Codify clause 2452.237-83, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), pursuant to a class deviation previously approved by the CPO on June 18, 2015;

    Pursuant to a class deviation signed by the CPO on October 16, 2015, codify a class deviation to clauses 2452.237-75, Access to HUD Facilities, and 2452.239-70, Access to HUD Systems, to add a requirement for contractors to report the status of PIV cards to the Government on a quarterly basis. Additionally, in 2452.237-75 and 2452.239-70, a definition of “contract” is added;

    In 2452.246-70, a clause relating to inspection and acceptance of work is added as prescribed in 2446.246-70.

    In the matrix, four clauses or provisions are added relating to level of effort and fee payment, labor categories, requirements and estimated level of effort, and access to controlled unclassified information. Additionally, some corrections of “Provision or Clause” (P/C) and “Uniform Contract Format” (UCF) designations are made.

    III. Findings and Certifications Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The burden of the information collections in this proposed rule is estimated as follows:

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • Annual cost
    HUDAR: 2452.204-70 20 1 20 16 320 $14,080.00 2452.209-70 10 1 10 0.5 5 220.00 2452.209-72 2 1 2 1 2 88.00 2452.215-70 150 1 150 80 12,000 528,000.00 2452.215-70, Alt I 25 1 25 40 1,000 44,000.00 2453.215-72 25 4 100 2 200 8,800.00 2452.216-72 2 4 8 2 16 704.00 2452.216-75 2 4 8 40 320 14,080.00 2452.216-78, Alt II 5 1 5 4 20 880.00 2452.219-70 50 1 50 0.5 25 1,100.00 2452.219-74 1 1 1 16 16 704.00 2452.227-70 5 1 5 40 200 8,800.00 2452.237-70 150 1 150 1 150 6,600.00 2452.237-75 (initial) 100 1 100 8 800 35,200.00 2452.237-75 (report) 100 4 400 8 3,200 140,800.00 2451.237-81 20 1 20 0.5 10 440.00 2452.239-70 (initial) 100 1 100 8 800 35,200.00 2452.239-70 (report) 100 4 400 8 3,200 140,800.00 2452.242-71 (plan) 40 4 160 8 320 14,080.00 2452.242-71 (report) 10 4 40 6 240 10,560.00 2453.227-70 1 1 1 8 8 352.00 Contractor Release 15 1 15 1 15 660.00 Contractor Assignment of Rebates, Credits 1 1 1 1 1 44.00 Total Costs 1,006,192.00

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning this collection of information to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after the publication date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of the publication date. This time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule, however. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (FR-6041-P-01) and must be sent to:

    HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 202-395-6947 and to one of the two options below: Ms. Colette Pollard, HUD Reports Liaison Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 2204, Washington, DC 20410 or

    Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information collection requirements electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit comments, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make comments immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically via the http://www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. To submit comments electronically, commenters should follow the instructions provided on the website.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule makes technical changes to existing contracting procedures and does not make any major changes that would significantly impact businesses. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.

    Environmental Impact

    This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2402, 2416, 2437, 2442, and 2452

    Government procurement.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 24 as follows:

    PART 2402—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 1. The authority citation for part 2402 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    2402.101 [Amended]
    2. Amend 2402.101 by removing the definitions of “Government Technical Monitor (GTM)” and “Government Technical Representative (GTR)”. PART 2416—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 3. The authority citation for part 2416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 253; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    4. Amend 2416.506-70 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
    2416.506-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (c) Estimated quantities—requirements contract. The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.216-77, Estimated Quantities—Requirements Contract, in all solicitations for requirements contracts.

    (e) Level of effort and fee payment. The Contracting Officer shall insert clause 2452.216-81, Level of Effort and Fee Payment, in all level-of-effort term contracts.

    (f) Labor categories, requirements, and estimated level of effort. The Contracting Officer shall insert provision 2452.216-82, Labor Categories, Requirements, and Estimated Level of Effort, in all level-of-effort solicitations. Contracting Officer's Representatives will provide the labor descriptions and estimated number of hours. Contracting Officers will obtain wage rate determinations for any classifications covered by the Service Contract Act.

    PART 2437—SERVICE CONTRACTING 5. The authority citation for part 2437 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    6. Amend 2437.110 by adding paragraphs (e)(7) and (8) to read as follows:
    2437.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (e) * * *

    (7) The Contracting Officer shall insert provision 2452.237-82, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), in Section L of solicitations when controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), as defined in the provision, will be provided to potential offerors for the purpose of preparing offers.

    (8) The Contracting Officer shall insert clause 2452.237-83 in Section H, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), of solicitations and contracts under which contractor and/or subcontractor employees will be granted access to controlled unclassified information (CUI) as defined in the clause.

    PART 2442—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 7. The authority citation for part 2442 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    8. Revise 2442.1107 to read as follows:
    2442.1107 Contract clause.

    (a) For purposes of clause 2452.242-71, the term “contract” shall also include task orders and purchase orders.

    (b) The Contracting Officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 2452.242-71, Contract Management System, in solicitations and contracts when all of the following conditions apply:

    (1) A contract exceeds $1,000,000, including all options; and

    (2) The contract is a completion type that requires the delivery of an overall end deliverable or solution (e.g., evaluation, study, model).

    (c) To the extent the clause will not normally be included in commercial contracts meeting the requirements stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, and in instances where the clause is to be incorporated, pursuant to FAR 12.301(f), a waiver to the standard commercial requirements, to include the clause, is not required.

    (d) The Contracting Officer shall use the basic clause for cost type, labor-hour, and time and materials contracts for the services described in paragraph (b) of this section. The clause shall be used with its alternate for fixed-price type contracts for the services described in paragraph (b). The Contracting Officer may elect to incorporate the clause into contracts below the established threshold.

    (e) The clause is not applicable to contracts that only expend a level of effort without a completion deliverable/product due, e.g., temporary services.

    (f) This clause is not applicable to Information Technology service contracts being managed through Earned Value Management techniques that require reporting of Earned Value Management.

    PART 2452—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 9. The authority citation for part 2452 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2452.2—Texts of Provisions and Clauses 10. Revise 2452.203-70 to read as follows:
    2452.203-70 Prohibition against the use of federal employees.

    As prescribed in 2403.670, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts:

    PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 3.601, contracts are not to be awarded to Federal employees or a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Federal employees. For the purposes of this contract, this prohibition against the use of Federal employees includes any work performed by the contractor or any of its employees, subcontractors, or consultants.

    (End of clause)
    11. Revise 2452.208-71 to read as follows:
    2452.208-71 Reproduction of reports.

    As prescribed in 2408.802-70, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts where the contractor is required to produce, as an end product, publications or other written materials:

    REPRODUCTION OF REPORTS ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    In accordance with Title I of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations, printing of reports, data or other written material, if required herein, is authorized provided that the material produced does not exceed 5,000 production units of any page and that items consisting of multiple pages do not exceed 25,000 production units in aggregate. The aggregate number of production units is determined by multiplying the number of pages by the number of copies. A production unit is one sheet, size 8.5 by 11 inches or less, printed on one side only and in one color. All copy preparation to produce camera-ready copy for reproduction must be set by methods other than hot metal typesetting. The reports should be produced by methods employing stencils, masters and plates which are to be used on single unit duplicating equipment no larger than 11 by 17 inches with a maximum image of 103/4 by 141/4 inches and are prepared by methods or devices that do not utilize reusable contact negatives and/or positives prepared with a camera requiring a darkroom. All reproducibles (camera ready copies for reproduction by photo offset methods) shall become the property of the Government and shall be delivered to the Government with the report, data, or other written materials.

    (End of clause)
    12. Amend 2452.215-70 by revising Alternate II to read as follows:
    2452.215-70 Proposal content. Alternate II

    As prescribed in 2415.209(a), add the following paragraph (e) when the size of any proposal Part I or Part II will be limited:

    PROPOSAL CONTENT ALTERNATE II ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (e) Size limits of Parts I and II. (1) Offerors shall limit submissions of Parts I and II of their initial proposals to the page limitations identified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors are cautioned that, if any Part of their proposal exceeds the stipulated limits for that Part, the Government will evaluate only the information contained in the pages up through the permitted number. Pages beyond that limit will not be evaluated.

    (2) A page shall consist of one side of a single sheet of 8.5″ x 11″ paper, single spaced, using not smaller than 12-point type font, and having margins at the top, bottom, and sides of the page of no less than one inch in width.

    (3) Any exemptions from this limitation are stipulated under the Instructions to Offerors.

    (4) Offerors are encouraged to use recycled paper and to use both sides of the paper (see the FAR clause at 52.204-4).

    (End of Provision)
    13. Revise 2452.216-80 to read as follows:
    2452.216-80 Estimated cost and fixed-fee.

    As prescribed in 2416.307(b), insert the following clause:

    ESTIMATED COST AND FIXED-FEE ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) It is estimated that the total cost to the Government for full performance of this contract will be $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount], of which $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the estimated reimbursable costs, and $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the fixed fee.

    (b) If this contract is incrementally funded, the following shall apply:

    (1) Total funds currently available for payment and allotted to this contract are $___ [Contracting Officer insert amount], of which ___ [Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the limitation for reimbursable costs and $___ Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the prorated amount of the fixed fee (see also the clause at FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds” herein).

    (2) If and when the contract is fully funded, as specified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the clause at FAR 52.232-20, “Limitation of Cost,” herein, shall become applicable.

    (3) The Contracting Officer may allot additional funds to the contract up to the total specified in paragraph (a) of this clause without the concurrence of the contractor.

    (End of clause)
    14. Add 2452.216-81 to read as follows:
    2452.216-81 Level of effort and fee payment.

    As prescribed in 2416.506-70(f), insert the following clause in all level-of-effort term contracts:

    LEVEL OF EFFORT AND FEE PAYMENT ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) The total level of effort to be provided under this contract is __ hours. The contractor shall be reimbursed for the actual labor costs incurred.

    (b) The contractor shall be paid the fixed fee specified in B. __, Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, herein, on a prorated basis in proportion to the percentage of the level of effort (LOE) performed at the time of billing in accordance with the following formula:

    (Number of acceptable hours delivered) divided by (Total hours in level of effort) X (Total fixed fee) = Fee payment

    (e.g., 1,000 hours delivered/10,000 hours (LOE) × $15,000 = $1,500)

    (c) In no event shall the amount of fee paid under the contract exceed the total fixed fee specified in B.[ ], Estimated Cost and Fixed Fee, herein.

    (End of clause)
    15. Add 2452.216-82 to read as follows:
    2452.216-82 Labor categories, requirements, and estimated level of effort.

    As prescribed in 2416.506-70(g), insert the following provision in all level-of-effort solicitations:

    LABOR CATEGORIES, REQUIREMENTS, AND ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) The Government anticipates that the following categories of labor shall be necessary to provide the services required by any contract resulting from this solicitation. Offerors must provide evidence that proposed staff meet the technical requirements for each category.

    (1) [Insert labor titles and technical requirements]

    (b) To assist offerors in the preparation of proposals, the Government estimates that the following levels of effort (staff hours) will be necessary to provide the services required by any contract resulting from this solicitation. These estimates are not binding on the Government. Offerors must break out their proposed costs by labor category. The contract performance period is intended to be for a total of [ ] months (a base period of [ ] months with [ ][insert number of options] [ ][insert number of months per option]-month option periods. The actual duration of the base period may be different. Offerors may propose labor at different rates per contract period.

    Staff Hours Labor category Base period 1st option
  • period
  • 2nd option
  • period
  • 3rd option
  • period
  • 4th option
  • period
  • [Insert titles and estimated number of hours per category]
    (End of provision)
    16. Revise 2452.219-72 to read as follows:
    2452.219-72 Section 8(a) direct awards.

    As prescribed in 2419.811-3(f), insert the following clause:

    SECTION 8(A) DIRECT AWARD ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) This contract is issued as a direct award between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the 8(a) Contractor pursuant to a Partnership Agreement (Agreement) between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and HUD. The SBA retains responsibility for 8(a) certification, 8(a) eligibility determinations and related issues, and providing counseling and assistance to the 8(a) contractor under the 8(a) program. The cognizant SBA district office is:

    [To be completed by Contracting Officer at time of award].

    (b) SBA is the prime contractor and ___ [insert name of 8(a) contractor] is the subcontractor under this contract. Under the terms of the Agreement, HUD is responsible for administering the contract and taking any action on behalf of the Government under the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the HUD Contracting Officer shall give advance notice to the SBA before issuing a final notice terminating performance, either in whole or in part, under the contract. The HUD Contracting Officer shall also coordinate with SBA prior to processing any novation agreement(s). HUD may assign contract administration functions to a contract administration office.

    (c) ___ [insert name of 8(a) contractor] agrees:

    (1) To notify the HUD Contracting Officer, simultaneously with its notification to SBA (as required by SBA's 8(a) regulations), when the owner or owners upon whom 8(a) eligibility is based, plan to relinquish ownership or control of the concern. Consistent with 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(21), transfer of ownership or control shall result in termination of the contract for convenience, unless SBA waives the requirement for termination prior to the actual relinquishing of ownership or control.

    (2) To adhere to the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, “Limitations on Subcontracting.”

    (End of Clause)
    17. Revise Alternate II of 2452.232-70 to read as follows:
    2452.232-70 Payment schedule and invoice submission (Fixed-Price). ALTERNATE II ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(2), replace paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of the HUDAR Clause 2452.232-70 Payment Schedule and Invoice Submission (Fixed-price) with the following Alternate II language in all fixed price solicitations and contracts when requiring invoices to be submitted electronically to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    (b) Submission of invoices. (1) The Contractor shall obtain access and submit invoices to the Department of Treasury Bureau of Fiscal Services' Invoice Platform Processing System via the Web at URL: https://arc.publicdebt.treas.gov/ipp/fsippqrg.htm in accordance with the instructions on the website. To constitute a proper invoice, the invoice must include all items required by the FAR clause at 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment.”

    (2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the Contractor is also requested to include on each invoice the appropriation number shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 21 of the SF-33, or block 25 of the SF-1449).

    (End of Alternate II)
    18. Revise 2452.232-71 to read as follows:
    2452.232-71 Voucher submission (cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor hour).

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), insert the following clause in all cost-reimbursable, time-and-materials, and labor-hour solicitations and contracts where vouchering and payments will NOT be made through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    2452.232-71 VOUCHER SUBMISSION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT, TIME-AND-MATERIALS, AND LABOR HOUR) ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) Voucher submission. (1) The Contractor shall submit ___ [Contracting Officer insert billing period, e.g., monthly], an original and two copies of each voucher. In addition to the items required by the clause at FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, the voucher shall show the elements of cost for the billing period and the cumulative costs to date. The Contractor shall submit all vouchers, except for the final voucher, as follows: original to the payment office and one copy each to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) identified in the contract. The Contractor shall submit all copies of the final voucher to the Contracting Officer.

    (2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the Contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, or block 21 of the SF-33). The contractor is also requested to clearly indicate on the mailing envelope that a payment voucher is enclosed.

    (b) Contractor remittance information. (1) The Contractor shall provide the payment office with all information required by other payment clauses contained in this contract.

    (2) The Contractor shall submit all necessary supporting documentation with vouchers that adequately demonstrate that costs claimed (1) have been incurred (including time sheets from the prime and subcontractor's automated or manual time tracking records and paid invoices for materials acquired), (2) reflect that they are allocable to the contract tasks, and (3) comply with cost principles in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and HUD Acquisition Regulation. The Contracting Officer may disallow all or part of a claimed cost that is inadequately supported.

    (3) For time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts, the Contractor shall aggregate vouchered costs by the individual task for which the costs were incurred and clearly identify the task or job.

    (c) Final payment. The final payment shall not be made until the Contracting Officer has certified that the Contractor has complied with all terms of the contract.

    (End of clause)
    ALTERNATE I ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) with the following Alternate I paragraphs to HUDAR Clause 2452.232-71, Voucher Submission (Cost Reimbursement, Time-And-Materials, and Labor Hour) in time and material, cost-reimbursable and labor hour solicitations and contracts other than performance-based under which performance-based payments will be used and where invoices are to be submitted electronically by email, but will not be paid through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system.

    (a) Voucher submission. (1) The Contractor shall submit vouchers electronically via email to the email addresses shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 12 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 25 of the SF-33, or block 18a of the SF-1449) and carbon copy the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). In addition to the items required by the clause at FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, the voucher shall show the elements of cost for the billing period and the cumulative costs to date. The Contractor shall clearly include in the Subject line of the email: VOUCHER INCLUDED; CONTRACT/ORDER #: ___ and CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER(S) ___.

    (2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, or block 21 of the SF-33).

    (End of Alternate I)

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of the HUDAR Clause 2452.232-71, Voucher Submission (Cost-Reimbursement, Time-And-Materials, And Labor Hour) with the following Alternate II language in all cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour type solicitations and contracts when requiring vouchers to be submitted electronically to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system.

    ALTERNATE II ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) Voucher submission. (1) The Contractor shall obtain access and submit invoices to the Department of Treasury Bureau of Fiscal Services' Invoice Platform Processing System via the Web at URL: https://arc.publicdebt.treas.gov/ipp/fsippqrg.htm in accordance with the instructions on the website. To constitute a proper voucher, in addition to the items required by the clause at FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, the voucher shall show the elements of cost for the billing period and the cumulative costs to date.

    (2) To assist the Government in making timely payments, the Contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, or block 21 of the SF-33).

    (End of Alternate II)
    19. Revise 2452.237-73 to read as follows:
    2452.237-73 Conduct of work and technical guidance.

    As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(2), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:

    CONDUCT OF WORK AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) The Contracting Officer will provide the contractor with the name and contact information of the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) assigned to this contract. The COR will serve as the Contractor's liaison with the Contracting Officer with regard to the conduct of work. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing of any change to the current COR's status or the designation of a successor COR.

    (b) The COR for liaison with the Contractor as to the conduct of work is [to be inserted at time of award] or a successor designated by the Contracting Officer.

    (c) The COR will provide guidance to the Contractor on the technical performance of the contract. Such guidance shall not be of a nature which:

    (1) Causes the Contractor to perform work outside the statement of work or specifications of the contract;

    (2) Constitutes a change as defined in FAR 52.243-1;

    (3) Causes an increase or decrease in the cost of the contract;

    (4) Alters the period of performance or delivery dates; or

    (5) Changes any of the other express terms or conditions of the contract.

    (d) The COR will issue technical guidance in writing or, if issued orally, he/she will confirm such direction in writing within five (5) calendar days after oral issuance. The COR may issue such guidance via telephone, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail.

    (e) Other specific limitations [to be inserted by Contracting Officer]:

    (f) The Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer whenever the Contractor believes that guidance provided by any government personnel, whether or not specifically provided pursuant to this clause, is of a nature described in paragraph (b) of this clause.

    (End of clause)
    20. Revise 2452.237-75 to read as follows:
    2452.237-75 Access to HUD facilities.

    As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(3), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts:

    ACCESS TO HUD FACILITIES ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

    “Access” means physical entry into and, to the extent authorized, mobility within a Government facility.

    “Contract” means any authorized contractual instrument, including, but not restricted to, task orders, purchase orders, Blanket Purchase Agreement calls, etc.

    “Contractor employee” means an employee of the prime contractor or of any subcontractor, affiliate, partner, joint venture, or team members with which the Contractor is associated. It also includes consultants engaged by any of those entities.

    “Facility” and “Government facility” mean buildings, including areas within buildings that are owned, leased, shared, occupied, or otherwise controlled by the Federal Government.

    “NACI” means National Agency Check with Inquiries, the minimum background investigation prescribed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    “PIV Card” means the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card, the Federal Government-issued identification credential (identification badge).

    (b) General. The performance of this contract requires contractor employees to have access to HUD facilities. All such employees who do not already possess a current PIV Card acceptable to HUD shall be required to provide personal background information, undergo a background investigation (NACI or other OPM-required or approved investigation), including an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, and obtain a PIV Card prior to being permitted access to any such facility in the performance of this contract.

    Unescorted access to any such facility in performance of this contract. HUD may accept a PIV Card issued by another Federal Government agency, but shall not be required to do so. No contractor employee will be permitted unescorted access to a HUD facility without a proper PIV Card.

    (c) Background information. (1) For each contractor employee subject to the requirements of this clause and not in possession of a current PIV Card acceptable to HUD, the Contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Electronic Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions via e-QIP,” completed USAccess enrollment (electronic fingerprinting) and Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1 through 17). Forms SF-85 and OF-306 are available from OPM's website, http://www.opm.gov. The electronic questionnaire is available on OPM's e-QIP site, https://www.opm.gov/investigations/e-qip-application/. The COR will provide all other forms that are not obtainable via the internet.

    (2) The Contractor shall deliver the forms and information required in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause to the COR as secure as possible.

    (3) The information provided in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this clause will be used to perform a background investigation to determine the suitability of the contractor employees to have access to Government facilities. After completion of the investigation, the COR will notify the Contractor in writing when any contractor employee is determined to be unsuitable for access to a Government facility. The Contractor shall immediately remove such employee(s) from work on this contract that requires physical presence in a Government facility.

    (4) Affected contractor employees who have had a Federal background investigation without a subsequent break in Federal employment or Federal contract service exceeding 2 years may be exempt from the investigation requirements of this clause subject to verification of the previous investigation. For each such employee, the Contractor shall submit the following information in lieu of the forms and information listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause: completed PIV and Pre-Security Form.

    (d) PIV Cards. (1) HUD will issue a PIV Card to each contractor employee who is to be given access to HUD facilities and who does not already possess a PIV Card acceptable to HUD (see paragraph (b) of this clause). HUD will not issue the PIV Card until the contractor employee has (1) successfully cleared the FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, (2) HUD has initiated the background investigation for the contractor employee, and (3) a Security Approval Notice from HUD PSD via [email protected] has been received. Initiation is defined to mean that all background information required in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause has been delivered to HUD. The employee may not be given access prior to those three events. HUD may issue a PIV Card and grant access pending the completion of the background investigation. HUD will revoke the PIV Card and the employee's access if the background investigation process for the employee, including adjudication of the investigation results, has not been completed within 6 months after the issuance of the PIV Card.

    (2) PIV Cards shall identify individuals as contractor employees. Contractor employees shall display their PIV Cards on their persons at all times while working in a HUD facility, and shall present cards for inspection upon request by HUD officials or HUD security personnel.

    (3) The Contractor shall be responsible for all PIV Cards issued to the Contractor's employees and shall immediately notify the COR if any PIV Card(s) cannot be accounted for. The Contractor shall promptly return PIV Cards to HUD, as required by the FAR clause at 52.204-9. The Contractor shall notify the COR immediately whenever any contractor employee no longer has a need for his/her HUD-issued PIV Card (e.g., employee terminates employment with the contractor, employee's duties no longer require access to HUD facilities). The COR will instruct the Contractor on how to return the PIV Card, and upon expiration of this contract, the COR will instruct the Contractor on how to return all HUD-issued PIV Cards not previously returned. Unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall not return PIV Cards to any person other than the COR.

    (4) The Contractor shall submit a report to the Contracting Officer and COR no later than five (5) calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter that provides the status of each employee who is required to work in a HUD facility during the performance of the contract. At a minimum, the report shall identify the contractor and the contract number, and list for each employee the following information:

    (i) Employee name;

    (ii) Name of HUD facility where employee works;

    (iii) Date background check submitted;

    (iv) Date PIV Card issued;

    (v) PIV card number;

    (vi) Date employee no longer has need of the HUD PIV Card;

    (vii) Date Contracting Officer and COR were notified that employee no longer had need of the HUD PIV Card; and

    (viii) Date PIV Card was returned to COR.

    (e) Control of access. HUD shall have, and exercise, complete control over granting, denying, withholding, and terminating access of contractor employees to HUD facilities. The COR will notify the Contractor immediately when HUD has determined that an employee is unsuitable or unfit to be permitted access to a HUD facility. The Contractor shall immediately notify such employee that he/she no longer has access to any HUD facility, remove the employee from any such facility that he/she may be in, and provide a suitable replacement in accordance with the requirements of this clause.

    (f) Access to HUD information systems. If this contract requires contractor employees to have access to HUD information system(s), application(s), or information contained in such systems, the Contractor shall comply with all requirements of HUDAR clause 2452.239-70, Access to HUD Systems, including providing for each affected employee any additional background investigation forms prescribed in that clause.

    (g) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall incorporate this clause in all subcontracts where the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section are applicable to performance of the subcontract.

    (End of clause)
    21. Add 2452.237-82 to read as follows:
    2452.237-82 Access to controlled unclassified information (CUI).

    As prescribed in HUDAR 2437.110(e)(7), the Contracting Officer shall insert provision 2452.237-82 in Section L of solicitations when controlled unclassified information (CUI), as defined in the provision, will be provided to potential offerors for the purpose of preparing offers.

    ACCESS TO CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) For the sole purpose of preparing an offer in response to this solicitation, HUD may make certain controlled unclassified information (CUI) available to prospective offerors.

    (b) CUI:

    (1) Is any information which the loss, misuse, or modification of, or unauthorized access to, could adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of Federal programs or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;

    (2) Is not available to the general public;

    (3) May include:

    (i) Government acquisition-sensitive information, including source selection information as defined at section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1); contractor bid or proposal information;

    (ii) Information contained in individual contracts that is not public information and such contract information that is contained in Government databases; proprietary economic, financial, or business information (e.g., salary information) provided to the Government by other parties (e.g., other contractors) or belonging to HUD;

    (iii) Personally identifiable information (PII) that includes, but is not limited to, Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth, places of birth, parents' names, credit card numbers, applications for entitlements, and information relating to a person's private financial, income, employment, and tax records; and

    (iv) Other information that the HUD Contracting Officer (CO) or other authorized HUD employee explicitly identifies as CUI.

    (4) May exist in various physical media (e.g., paper, electronic file, audio, or video disc), may be transmitted orally, developed under or pre-exist any related contract, and may be in its original form, or a derivative form (i.e., where the information has been included in contractor-generated work, or where it is discernible from materials incorporating or based upon such information).

    (c) As a prior condition to being provided access to any CUI, each prospective offeror shall execute the following nondisclosure agreements and deliver the executed agreements to the Contracting Officer:

    (1) Nondisclosure Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and Offeror Granting Conditional Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (“Offeror Agreement”) (see Attachment J-__ [contracting officer insert attachment number]). This agreement must be executed by an officer or other representative of the company authorized to bind the firm to the commitments made by the agreement and the individual nondisclosure agreements executed by those offeror employees or representatives to whom the sensitive information will be provided.

    (2) Nondisclosure Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Offeror Employee or Other External Party Granting Conditional Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (“Nondisclosure Agreement”) (see Attachment J__ [contracting officer insert attachment number]). A separate agreement must be executed by each person to whom access to CUI will be provided, regardless of whether HUD or the Offeror provides such access. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that each individual who is provided access to CUI executes a nondisclosure agreement.

    (3) NDAs must be submitted to the CO and COR within ten (10) days after contract award or as otherwise specified by the CO.

    (d) CUI will be provided to prospective offerors as follows: [describe how information will be provided including: the party responsible for providing access to information, the procedure for obtaining access, and the format in which the information is contained; e.g., “by the contracting officer on compact disk (CD) at the pre-proposal meeting].

    (e) The offeror's failure to comply with any part of this provision or with the terms of the required nondisclosure agreements may disqualify the offeror for consideration of any contract awarded under this solicitation.

    (End of Provision)
    22. Add 2452.237-83 to read as follows:
    2452.237-83 Access to controlled unclassified information (CUI).

    As prescribed in HUDAR 2437.110(e)(8), the Contracting Officer shall insert clause 2452.237-83 in Section H of solicitations and contracts under which contractor and/or subcontractor employees will be granted access to controlled unclassified information as defined in the clause.

    ACCESS TO CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) For the sole purpose of performing work required under this contract, the contracting officer may grant the contractor-including contractor employees, subcontractors, and subcontractor employees-access to controlled unclassified information (CUI).

    (b) CUI:

    (1) Is any information which the loss, misuse, or modification of, or unauthorized access to, could adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of Federal programs or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;

    (2) Is not available to the general public;

    (3) May include:

    (i) Government acquisition-sensitive information, including source selection information as defined at section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1); contractor bid or proposal information;

    (ii) Information contained in individual contracts that is not public information and such contract information that is contained in Government databases; proprietary economic, financial, or business information (e.g., salary information) provided to the Government by other parties (e.g., other contractors) or belonging to HUD;

    (iii) Personally identifiable information (PII) that includes, but is not limited to social security numbers, names, dates of birth, places of birth, parents' names, credit card numbers, applications for entitlements, and information relating to a person's private financial, income, employment, and tax records; and

    (iv) Other information that the HUD contracting officer or other authorized HUD employee explicitly identifies as CUI; and

    (4) May exist in various physical media (e.g., paper, electronic file, audio or video disc) or be transmitted orally, may be developed under or pre-exist any related contract, and may be in its original form or a derivative form (i.e., where the information has been included in contractor-generated work, or where it is discernible from materials incorporating or based upon such information).

    (c) As a prior condition to being provided access to any CUI, each contractor or subcontractor employee shall execute the nondisclosure agreement in attachment J.__ [contracting officer insert attachment number] to this contract and deliver the executed agreement to the contracting officer.

    (d) The contractor shall include this clause in all subcontracts.

    (e) The contractor's failure to comply with any part of this clause or with the terms of the required nondisclosure agreements may result in the termination of this contract for default.

    (End of Clause)
    23. Revise 2452.239-70 to read as follows:
    2452.239-70 Access to HUD systems.

    As prescribed in 2439.107(a), insert the following clause:

    ACCESS TO HUD SYSTEMS ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

    “Access” means the ability to obtain, view, read, modify, delete, and/or otherwise make use of information resources.

    “Application” means the use of information resources (information and information technology) to satisfy a specific set of user requirements (see Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130).

    “Contract” means any authorized contractual instrument, including, but not restricted to, task orders, purchase orders, Blanket Purchase Agreement calls, etc.

    “Contractor employee” means an employee of the prime contractor or of any subcontractor, affiliate, partner, joint venture, or team members with which the Contractor is associated. It also includes consultants engaged by any of those entities.

    “Mission-critical system” means an information technology or telecommunications system used or operated by HUD or by a HUD contractor, or organization on behalf of HUD, that processes any information, the loss, misuse, disclosure, or unauthorized access to, or modification of which would have a debilitating impact on the mission of the agency.

    “NACI” means a National Agency Check with Inquiries, the minimum background investigation prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    “PIV Card” means the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card, the Federal Government-issued identification credential (i.e., identification badge).

    “Sensitive information” means any information of which the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to, or modification of, could adversely affect the national interest, the conduct of Federal programs, or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.

    “System” means an interconnected set of information resources under the same direct management control, which shares common functionality. A system normally includes hardware, software, information, data, applications, communications, and people (see OMB Circular A-130). System includes any system owned by HUD or owned and operated on HUD's behalf by another party.

    (b) General. (1) The performance of this contract requires contractor employees to have access to a HUD system or systems. All such employees who do not already possess a current PIV Card acceptable to HUD shall be required to provide personal background information, undergo a background investigation (NACI or other OPM-required or approved investigation), including an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, and obtain a PIV Card prior to being permitted access to any such system in performance of this contract. HUD may accept a PIV Card issued by another Federal Government agency, but shall not be required to do so. No contractor employee will be permitted access to any HUD system without a PIV Card.

    (2) All contractor employees who require access to mission-critical systems or sensitive information contained within a HUD system or application(s) are required to have a more extensive background investigation. The investigation shall be commensurate with the risk and security controls involved in managing, using, or operating the system or applications(s).

    (c) Citizenship-related requirements. Each affected contractor employee as described in paragraph (b) of this clause shall be:

    (1) A United States (U.S.) citizen; or,

    (2) A national of the United States (see 8 U.S.C. 1408); or,

    (3) An alien lawfully admitted into, and lawfully permitted to be employed in the United States, provided that for any such individual, the Government is able to obtain sufficient background information to complete the investigation as required by this clause. Failure on the part of the contractor to provide sufficient information to perform a required investigation or the inability of the Government to verify information provided for affected contractor employees will result in denial of their access.

    (d) Background investigation process. (1) The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) shall notify the contractor of those contractor employee positions requiring background investigations.

    (i) For each contractor employee requiring access to HUD information systems, the contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Electronic Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-sensitive Positions” via e-QIP, completed USAccess enrollment (electronic fingerprinting) and Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1 through 17). The SF-85 and OF-306 are available from the OPM website, http://www.opm.gov. The electronic questionnaire is available on OPM's e-QIP site, https://www.opm.gov/investigations/e-qip-application/.

    (ii) For each contractor employee requiring access to mission-critical systems and/or sensitive information contained within a HUD system and/or application(s), the Contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Electronic SF-85P, “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions” via e-QIP;” Electronic Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-sensitive Positions via e-QIP,” completed USAccess enrollment (electronic fingerprinting) and Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1 through 17). The SF-85 and OF-306 are available from the OPM website, http://www.opm.gov. The Electronic questionnaire is available on OPM's e-QIP site, https://www.opm.gov/investigations/e-qip-application/; and a Fair Credit Reporting Act form (authorization for the credit-check portion of the investigation). Contractor employees shall complete the Medical Release behind the SF-85P.

    (iii) The electronic questionnaires (e-QIP) SF-85, 85P, and OF-306 are available from OPM's websites https://www.opm.gov/investigations/e-qip-application/ and http://www.opm.gov. The COR will provide all other forms that are not obtainable via the internet.

    (2) The Contractor shall deliver the forms and information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause to the COR as securely as possible.

    (3) Affected contractor employees who have had a Federal background investigation without a subsequent break in Federal employment or Federal contract service exceeding 2 years may be exempt from the investigation requirements of this clause, subject to verification of the previous investigation. For each such employee, the Contractor shall submit the following information in lieu of the forms and information listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause: PIV and Pre-Security Form.

    (4) The investigation process shall consist of a range of personal background inquiries and contacts (written and personal) and verification of the information provided on the investigative forms described in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.

    (5) Upon completion of the investigation process, the COR will notify the Contractor if any contractor employee is determined to be unsuitable to have access to the system(s), application(s), or information. Such an employee may not be given access to those resources. If any such employee has already been given access pending the results of the background investigation, the Contractor shall ensure that the employee's access is revoked immediately upon receipt of the COR's notification.

    (6) Failure of the COR to notify the Contractor (see paragraph (d)(1) of this clause) of any employee who should be subject to the requirements of this clause and is known, or should reasonably be known, by the Contractor to be subject to the requirements of this clause, shall not excuse the Contractor from making such employee(s) known to the COR. Any such employee who is identified and is working under the contract, without having had the appropriate background investigation or furnished the required forms for the investigation, shall cease to perform such work immediately and shall not be given access to the system(s)/application(s) described in paragraph (b) of this clause until the Contractor has provided the investigative forms to the COR for the employee, as required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.

    (7) The Contractor shall notify the COR in writing whenever a contractor employee for whom a background investigation package was required and submitted to HUD, or for whom a background investigation was completed, terminates employment with the Contractor or otherwise is no longer performing work under this contract that requires access to the system(s), application(s), or information. The Contractor shall provide a copy of the written notice to the Contracting Officer.

    (e) PIV Cards. (1) HUD will issue a PIV Card to each contractor employee who is to be given access to HUD systems and does not already possess a PIV Card acceptable to HUD (see paragraph (b) of this clause). HUD will not issue the PIV Card until the contractor employee has (1) successfully cleared an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, (2) HUD has initiated the background investigation for the contractor employee, and (3) a Security Approval Notice from HUD PSD via [email protected] has been received. Initiation is defined to mean that all background information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause has been delivered to HUD. The employee may not be given access prior to those three events. HUD may issue a PIV Card and grant access pending the completion of the background investigation. HUD will revoke the PIV Card and the employee's access if the background investigation process for the employee, including adjudication of the investigation results, has not been completed within 6 months after the issuance of the PIV Card.

    (2) PIV Cards shall identify individuals as contractor employees. Contractor employees shall display their PIV Cards on their persons at all times while working in a HUD facility, and shall present cards for inspection upon request by HUD officials or HUD security personnel.

    (3) The Contractor shall be responsible for all PIV Cards issued to the Contractor's employees and shall immediately notify the COR if any PIV Card(s) cannot be accounted for. The Contractor shall promptly return PIV Cards to HUD as required by the FAR clause at 52.204-9. The Contractor shall notify the COR immediately whenever any contractor employee no longer has a need for his/her HUD-issued PIV Card (e.g., the employee terminates employment with the Contractor, the employee's duties no longer require access to HUD systems). The COR will instruct the Contractor as to how to return the PIV Card. Upon expiration of this contract, the COR will instruct the Contractor as to how to return all HUD-issued PIV Cards not previously returned. Unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall not return PIV Cards to any person other than the COR.

    (4) The Contractor shall submit a report to the Contracting Officer and COR no later than five (5) calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter that provides the status of each employee who is required to work in a HUD facility during the performance of the contract. At a minimum, the report shall identify the Contractor and the contract number, and list for each employee the following information:

    (i) Employee name;

    (ii) Name of HUD facility where employee works;

    (iii) Date background check submitted;

    (iv) Date PIV Card issued;

    (v) PIV card number;

    (vi) Date employee no longer has need of the HUD PIV Card;

    (vii) Date Contracting Officer and COR were notified that employee no longer has need of the HUD PIV Card; and

    (viii) Date PIV Card returned to COR.

    (f) Control of access. HUD shall have and exercise full and complete control over granting, denying, withholding, and terminating access of contractor employees to HUD systems. The COR will notify the Contractor immediately when HUD has determined that an employee is unsuitable or unfit to be permitted access to a HUD system. The Contractor shall immediately notify such employee that he/she no longer has access to any HUD system, physically retrieve the employee's PIV Card from the employee, and provide a suitable replacement employee in accordance with the requirements of this clause.

    (g) Incident response notification. An incident is defined as an event, either accidental or deliberate, that results in unauthorized access, loss, disclosure, modification, or destruction of information technology systems, applications, or data. The contractor shall immediately notify the COR and the Contracting Officer of any known or suspected incident, or any unauthorized disclosure of the information contained in the system(s) to which the Contractor has access.

    (h) Nondisclosure of information. (1) Neither the Contractor nor any of its employees shall divulge or release data or information developed or obtained during performance of this contract, except to authorized Government personnel with an established need to know, or upon written approval of the Contracting Officer. Information contained in all source documents and other media provided by HUD is the sole property of HUD.

    (2) The contractor shall require that all employees who may have access to the system(s)/applications(s) identified in paragraph (b) of this clause sign a pledge of nondisclosure of information. The employees shall sign these pledges before they are permitted to perform work under this contract. The contractor shall maintain the signed pledges for a period of 3 years after final payment under this contract. The contractor shall provide a copy of these pledges to the COR.

    (i) Security procedures. (1) The Contractor shall comply with applicable Federal and HUD statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures governing the security of the system(s) to which the Contractor's employees have access including, but not limited to:

    (i) The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA);

    (ii) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources;

    (iii) HUD Handbook 2400.25, Information Technology Security Policy;

    (iv) HUD Handbook 732.3, Personnel Security/Suitability;

    (v) Federal Information Processing Standards 201 (FIPS 201), Sections 2.1 and 2.2;

    (vi) Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12); and

    (vii) OMB Memorandum M-05-24, Implementing Guidance for HSPD-12.

    The HUD Handbooks are available online at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/ or from the COR.

    (2) The Contractor shall develop and maintain a compliance matrix that lists each requirement set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)(1), and (m) of this clause with specific actions taken, and/or procedures implemented, to satisfy each requirement. The contractor shall identify an accountable person for each requirement, the date upon which actions/procedures were initiated/completed, and certify that information contained in this compliance matrix is correct. The Contractor shall ensure that information in this compliance matrix is complete, accurate, and up-to-date at all times for the duration of this contract. Upon request, the Contractor shall provide copies of the current matrix to HUD.

    (3) The Contractor shall ensure that its employees, in performance of the contract, receive annual training (or once if the contract is for less than one year) in HUD information technology security policies, procedures, computer ethics, and best practices in accordance with HUD Handbook 2400.25.

    (j) Access to contractor's systems. The Contractor shall afford HUD, including the Office of Inspector General, access to the Contractor's facilities, installations, operations, documentation (including the compliance matrix required under paragraph (i)(2) of this clause), databases, and personnel used in performance of the contract. Access shall be provided to the extent required to carry out, but not limited to, any information security program activities, investigation, and audit to safeguard against threats and hazards to the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of HUD data and systems, or to the function of information systems operated on behalf of HUD, and to preserve evidence of computer crime.

    (k) Contractor compliance with this clause. Failure on the part of the Contractor to comply with the terms of this clause may result in termination of this contract for default.

    (l) Physical access to Federal Government facilities. The Contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall also comply with the requirements of HUDAR clause 2452.237-75 when the Contractor's or subcontractor's employees will perform any work under this contract on site in a HUD or other Federal Government facility.

    (m) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall incorporate this clause in all subcontracts where the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this clause are applicable to performance of the subcontract.

    (End of clause)
    24. Amend 2452.242-71 by revising the introductory text and main clause to read as follows:
    2452.242-71 Contract management system.

    As prescribed in 2442.1107, insert the following clause:

    CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    (a) The Contractor shall use contract management baseline planning and progress reporting as described herein.

    (b) The contract management system shall consist of two parts:

    (1) Baseline plan. The baseline plan shall consist of:

    (i) A narrative portion that:

    (A) Identifies each task and significant activity required for completing the contract work, critical path activities, task dependencies, task milestones, and related deliverables;

    (B) Describes the contract schedule, including the period of time needed to accomplish each task and activity (see paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this clause);

    (C) Describes staff (e.g., hours per individual), financial, and other resources allocated to each task and significant activity; and

    (D) Provides the rationale for contract work organization and resource allocation.

    (ii) A graphic portion showing:

    (A) Cumulative planned or budgeted costs of work scheduled for each reporting period over the life of the contract (i.e., the budgeted baseline); and

    (B) The planned start and completion dates of all planned and budgeted tasks and activities.

    (2) Progress reports. Progress reports shall consist of:

    (i) A narrative portion that:

    (A) Provides a brief, concise summary of technical progress made and the costs incurred for each task during the reporting period; and

    (B) Identifies problems, or potential problems, that will affect the contract's cost or schedule, the causes of the problems, and the Contractor's proposed corrective actions.

    (ii) A graphic portion showing:

    (A) The original time-phased, budgeted baseline;

    (B) The schedule status and degree of completion of the tasks, activities, and deliverables shown in the baseline plan for the reporting period, including actual start and completion dates for all tasks and activities in the baseline plan; and

    (C) The costs incurred during the reporting period, the current total amount of costs incurred through the end date of the reporting period for budgeted work, and the projected costs required to complete the work under the contract.

    (3) Reporting frequency. The reports described in paragraph (b)(2) of this clause shall be submitted [insert period, e.g., monthly, quarterly, or schedule based on when payments will be made under the contract].

    (c) The formats, forms, and/or software to be used for the contract management system under this contract shall be [Contracting Officer insert appropriate language, such as “as prescribed in the schedule;” “a format, forms and/or software designated by the COR” or, “the Contractor's own format, forms and/or software, subject to the approval of the COR.”].

    (d) When this clause applies to individual task orders under the contract, the word “contract” shall mean “task order.”

    (End of clause)
    25. Revise 2452.246-70 to read as follows:
    2452.246-70 Inspection and acceptance.

    As prescribed in 2446.502-70, insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts:

    INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE ([ABBREVIATED MONTH AND YEAR OF DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE])

    Inspection and acceptance of all work required under this contract shall be performed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or other individual as designated by the Contracting Officer or COR.

    (End of clause)
    26. Revise 2452.3 to read as follows:
    2452.3 Provision and clause matrix. BILLING CODE 4210-67-P EP09AP18.001 EP09AP18.002 EP09AP18.003 EP09AP18.004 EP09AP18.005 BILLING CODE 4210-67-C
    Dated: February 28, 2018. Keith W. Surber, Chief Procurement Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06362 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 218 [Docket No. 170720687-8212-01] RIN 0648-BH06 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the preamble of the proposed regulations published on March 13, 2018, governing the take of marine mammals incidental to the U.S. Navy (Navy) training and testing activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area. This action is necessary to correct an error in where sections of the table were omitted in the Federal Register notice on March 13, 2018.

    DATES:

    Applicable on April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427-8401, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    A proposed rule published March 13, 2018 (83 FR 10954) for the take of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. This correction replaces Table 4 contained in the preamble of the proposed training activities within the AFTT Study Area.

    Need for Correction

    As published on page 10963 of the preamble to the proposed rule, Table 4. Proposed Training was incorrect. Sections of the table were missing from the preamble, specifically Amphibious Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Expeditionary Warfare, Mine Warfare, and a portion of Surface Warfare. This correction does not change NMFS' analysis or conclusions in the proposed rule. Table 4 is corrected to read as follows:

    EP09AP18.007 EP09AP18.008 EP09AP18.009 EP09AP18.010 EP09AP18.011 EP09AP18.012 EP09AP18.013 Dated: April 3, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07131 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 68 Monday, April 9, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 4, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by May 9, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Baby Squash and Baby Courgettes from Zambia.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0347.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C 7701), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. APHIS fruits and vegetables regulations allow the importation into the continental United States of baby squash and baby courgettes from Zambia. As a condition of entry, both commodities would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for pest exclusion at the production site, fruit fly trapping inside and outside the production site, and pest excluding packinghouse procedures. Both commodities would also be required to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the baby squash and baby courgette have been produced in accordance with the proposed requirements.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information using the following: Physanitary Certificate, Records and Monitoring, Labeling on Cartons, Approval and Inspection of Greenhouses, Greenhouse Pest Detection Notification, and Emergency Action Notification.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 2.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 10.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07149 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces our intention to request a 3-year extension and revision of a currently approved information collection for “Export Inspection and Weighing Waiver for High Quality Specialty Grain Transported in Containers”.

    The realignment of offices within the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized by the Secretary's Memorandum dated November 14, 2017, eliminates the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) as a standalone agency. The grain inspection activities formerly part of GIPSA are now organized under AMS.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by June 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods:

    The Federal eRulemarking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    • Karen W. Guagliardo, Director, Quality Assurance and Compliance Division (QACD), Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), USDA/AMS, STOP 3630, Room 2420-South, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3630; [email protected] Comments should reference “High Quality Specialty Grain Exported in Containers Information Collection,” and should reference the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. The information collection package, public comments, and other documents relating to this action will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information regarding the collection of information activities and the use of the information, contact Candace A. Hildreth, Compliance Officer at (202) 720-0203.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Congress enacted The United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71—87k) to facilitate the marketing of grain in interstate and foreign commerce. The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires that all grain shipped from the United States must be officially inspected and officially weighed. The USGSA authorizes the Department of Agriculture to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA in circumstances when the objectives of the USGSA would not be impaired.

    Section 7 CFR 800.18 of the regulations waives the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA for high quality specialty grain exported in containers. FGIS established this waiver to facilitate the marketing of high quality specialty grain exported in containers. This action was consistent with the objectives of the USGSA and would promote the continuing development of the high quality specialty grain export market.

    To ensure that exporters of high quality specialty grain complied with this waiver, FGIS required exporters to maintain records generated during the normal course of business that pertain to these shipments and make these documents available upon request for review or copying purposes (76 FR 45397). These records shall be maintained for a period of 3 years. This information collection requirement is essential to ensure that exporters who ship high quality specialty grain in containers comply with the waiver provisions. FGIS does not require exporters of high quality specialty grain to complete and submit new Federal government record(s), form(s), or report(s).

    Title: Export Inspection and Weighing Waiver for High Quality Specialty Grain Transported in Containers.

    OMB Number: 0580-0022.

    Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The regulations under the USGSA waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements for high quality specialty grain exported in containers. FGIS established this waiver to facilitate the marketing of high quality specialty grain exported in containers. To ensure compliance with this wavier, FGIS required these exporters to maintain records generated during their normal course of business that pertain to these shipments and make these documents available to FGIS upon request, for review and copying purposes.

    Grain Contracts

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting and recordkeeping burden for maintaining contract information averages 6.0 hours per exporter.

    Respondents: Exporters of high quality specialty grain in containers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

    Estimated Number of Respondents per Request: 1.

    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 240 Hours.

    Estimated Total Cost: $1,780.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: April 4, 2018. Greg Ibach, Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07211 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 4, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by May 9, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food Safety and Inspection Service

    Title: Marking, Labeling, and Packaging of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0092.

    Summary of Collection: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). These statues mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSIS will collect information to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products are accurately labeled. To control the manufacture of marking devices bearing official marks, FSIS requires that official meat and poultry establishments and the manufacturers of such marking devices complete FSIS form 5200-7, Authorization Certificate, FSIS form 7234-1, Application for Approval of Labels, Marking or Device and FSIS Form 8822-4 Request for Label Reconsideration. If the information is not collected it would reduce the effectiveness of the meat, poultry, and egg products inspection program.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 6,418.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 128,267.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07160 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0104] General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan and 44th Biennial Conference AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We are giving notice of a meeting of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) and the NPIP's 44th Biennial Conference.

    DATES:

    The General Conference Committee meeting will be held on June 26, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The General Session of the Biennial Conference will be held on June 27, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and June 28, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting and conference will be held at the Franklin Marriott Cool Springs, 700 Cool Springs Boulevard, Franklin, TN 37067.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Denise Heard, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.

    Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:

    1. NPIP approval of new diagnostic tests.

    2. Salmonella update.

    3. National Veterinary Services Laboratories avian influenza update.

    4. Mycoplasma update.

    The meeting will be open to the public; however, public participation in discussions during the sessions will only be allowed if time permits. Written statements may be filed at the meeting or filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0104 when submitting your statements.

    This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of April 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07075 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-502] Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain producers or exporters of subject merchandise have made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Toni Page, 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) 482-1398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017. This review covers three producers or exporters of the subject merchandise, Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Thai Premium Pipe Co. Ltd. (Thai Premium).

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.1 On March 1, 2018, we further extended the deadline for the preliminary results to 365 days.2 On March 1, 2018, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results to 365 days.3 As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now April 3, 2018.

    1See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018.

    2See Commerce Memorandum, “Circular Welded Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review—2016-2017,” (March 1, 2018).

    3 See Commerce Memorandum, “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review—2016-2017,” (March 1, 2018).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. For a full description of the scope of this order, please see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4

    4See the Memorandum, “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017” (dated concurrently with this Federal Register notice) (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as the Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • Average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Pacific Pipe Company Limited 10.66 Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd 0.00 Thai Premium Pipe Co. Ltd 5.34
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.5 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    6See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for an importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    Commerce clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.7 This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by a respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    7 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if that rate is de minimis, then the cash deposit rate will be zero); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above in the Preliminary Results of Review, including those for which Commerce may determine had no shipments during the POR, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the “all-others” rate of 15.67 percent established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.8 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    8See Antidumping Duty Order; Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary 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 Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: April 3, 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—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Particular Market Situation V. Comparison to Normal Value VI. Product Comparisons VII. Discussion of Methodology A. Determination of Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis C. Date of Sale D. Export Price E. Normal Value F. Currency Conversion VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-07191 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-080] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Applicable April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Omar Qureshi, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5307.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 15, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of cast iron soil pipe from the People's Republic of China.1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than April 23, 2018.

    1See Cast Iron Soil Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 8047 (February 23, 2018).

    Postponement of the Preliminary Determination

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days of the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made, Commerce may postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated the investigation, pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (the petitioner) has made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination, maintaining that the current deadline does not realistically provide Commerce with adequate time to review the questionnaire responses.2

    2See, the petitioner's March 28, 2018, submission.

    In light of the request from the petitioner, Commerce, in accordance with section 703(c)(l)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the day on which Commerce initiated this investigation, i.e., June 25, 2018. Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: April 3, 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. 2018-07192 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-560-828] Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the sole exporter subject to this administrative review has not made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-3693, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Indonesia. The notice of initiation of this administrative review was published on May 9, 2017.1 We rescinded the review of PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk, PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk, and Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills on August 11, 2017.2 As a result, this review only covers APRIL,3 a producer and exporter of the subject merchandise. The POR is August 26, 2015, through February 28, 2017.

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 21513 (May 9, 2017) (Initiation Notice), as corrected by Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 26444, 26451 (June 7, 2017).

    2See Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017, 82 FR 37565 (August 11, 2017), as corrected by Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Notice of Correction to Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2017, 82 FR 44381 (September 22, 2017).

    3 Commerce selected PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, and APRIL Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited (collectively, APRIL) as a mandatory respondent in this investigation. Further, for these preliminary results, Commerce preliminarily has determined to collapse, and treat as a single entity, this company and two affiliated parties, PT Sateri Viscose International and A P Fine Paper Trading (Hong Kong) Limited. See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2015-2017 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), at 4-6. The collapsed entity is hereinafter collectively referred to as APRIL.

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now April 3, 2018.4

    4See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    We preliminarily determine that APRIL has not made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not to assess antidumping duties on any of APRIL's entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews. 5

    5See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain uncoated paper.6 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. Some imports of subject merchandise may also be classified under 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 4802.62.6040, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 4811.90.8050 and 4811.90.9080. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

    6 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin exists for APRIL for the period August 26, 2015, through February 28, 2017, as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, PT Sateri Viscose International, A P Fine Paper Trading (Hong Kong) Limited, and APRIL Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited (collectively, APRIL) 0.00
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.7 Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.9 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.10 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.11

    7See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    11See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.12 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.13

    12See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    13Id.

    Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication date of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    If APRIL's weighted-average dumping margin remains zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, then we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate APRIL's entries without regard to antidumping duties. If APRIL's weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review, then pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because APRIL reported the entered value for all of its U.S. sales, we intend to calculate an importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to take into account the “provisional measures cap” in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(d). In addition, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by APRIL for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction. The all-others rate is 2.10 percent.14

    14See Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Brazil and Indonesia and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 11174 (March 3, 2016) (Order).

    The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.15 We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    15See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for APRIL will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 2.10 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation.16 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    16See Order, 81 FR at 11174.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: April 3, 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 List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Affiliation and Collapsing a. Legal Framework b. Affiliation and Single Entity Analysis 5. Discussion of the Methodology a. Normal Value Comparisons b. Determination of Comparison Method c. Results of Differential Pricing Analysis d. Product Comparisons e. Date of Sale f. Export Price g. Duty Drawback h. Normal Value i. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market ii. Level of Trade iii. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of Cost of Production 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test iv. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices v. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value 6. Currency Conversion 7. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-07193 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0015] Request for Information Regarding Bureau Financial Education Programs AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the Bureau in assessing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of its consumer financial education programs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0015, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include Docket No. CFPB-2018-0015 in the subject line of the message.

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Davida Farrar, Counsel, Consumer Education and Engagement Division, at 202-435-9523, or Katherine Gillespie, Deputy Associate Director, Consumer Education and Engagement Division, at 202-435-7847. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (Act) lists “conducting financial education programs” as one of six primary functions of the Bureau.1 One of the Bureau's statutory objectives under the Act is to ensure that, with respect to consumer financial products and services, “consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions.” 2 The Act directs the Bureau to develop and implement “initiatives intended to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions.” 3 The Act also directs the Bureau to develop and implement a strategy to improve consumers' financial literacy by, among other things, providing opportunities for consumers to access information and resources related to a range of financial topics including credit products, histories, and scores; savings, borrowing and other services found at mainstream financial institutions; preparing for major purchases such as education; debt reduction; improving the consumer's financial situation; the development of long-term savings strategies; and wealth-building.4 Pursuant to the Act, the Bureau develops programs to serve the general public,5 as well as specific populations, including servicemembers, veterans and their families,6 older Americans,7 students,8 and traditionally underserved consumers.9

    1 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(1).

    2 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1).

    3 12 U.S.C. 5493(d)(1).

    4 12 U.S.C. 5493(d)(2)(B)-(F).

    5 12 U.S.C. 5493(d)(1).

    6 12 U.S.C. 5493(e)(1)(A).

    7 12 U.S.C. 5493(g)(1).

    8 12 U.S.C. 5535(a); 5493(d)(2)(D)(i).

    9 12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(2).

    The Bureau conducts various financial education programs covering a range of financial topics. Currently, the Bureau offers information directly to Americans through the Bureau's website and indirectly through community channels, such as libraries and social service agencies. The topics covered on the Bureau's website and through its print publications include mortgages, credit reporting, student loans, debt collection, and bank accounts. The Bureau has also created guides for specific financial decisions, including Buying a House,10 Paying for College,11 and Planning for Retirement.12 The Bureau also focuses on providing information to specific audiences, including older Americans, families, students and servicemembers. The Bureau also provides financial educators with tools, research, webinars, training, and tips on delivering financial education and on ways to measure and increase the financial well-being of the people served through financial education. The Bureau has contracted with outside entities to support specific elements of the Bureau's financial education work.

    10https://www.consumerfinance.gov/owning-a-home/.

    11https://www.consumerfinance.gov/paying-for-college/.

    12https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/retirement/.

    The Bureau uses various metrics to measure the reach and effectiveness of its financial education work, including the number of consumers and financial educators using the Bureau's information and tools, qualitative user feedback, increased understanding of certain topics, and user satisfaction ratings. The Bureau has also developed an evidence-based scale to measure financial well-being as an outcome of financial education programs.13 The Bureau has used this scale to conduct a National Financial Well-being Survey.14 The scale and underlying research are also available for financial educators to use as they measure their own programs.

    13https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/financial-well-being-scale/.

    14https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/financial-well-being-survey-data/.

    The Bureau is a member of the federal Financial Literacy and Education Commission (FLEC), and the Bureau's Director is the Vice-Chair of FLEC. The Bureau has coordinated with other Federal agencies to deliver financial education, such as cooperating with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to create Money Smart for Older Adults.

    Overview of This Request for Information

    The Bureau is using this request for information to seek public input regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the Bureau's financial education programs, including its focus on various topics, programs, delivery channels and methods, the use of technology, and the use of the procurement process to support its work. The Bureau encourages comments from all interested members of the public. The Bureau anticipates that the responding public may include individual consumers, financial educators, members of industry, consumer advocates, researchers or members of academia, state and local officials, and others. This RFI is not the vehicle to express interest in contracting with the Bureau. Additionally, the Bureau does not provide grants.

    Questions for Commenters

    The Bureau requests that, where possible, comments include specific suggestions regarding ways to:

    • Improve the Bureau's existing programs and delivery mechanisms;

    • Better measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the Bureau's financial education work; and

    • Eliminate or minimize the duplication of the Bureau's financial education work with work performed by other entities, including federal, state, and local agencies.

    The following list of general questions represents a preliminary attempt by the Bureau to identify elements of Bureau financial education programs that are of the greatest interest to the public. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. Please feel free to comment on some or all of the questions below, but please be sure to indicate on which area you are commenting.

    The Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its consumer financial education programs, including but not limited to the following topics:

    1. The Bureau's focus on specific financial education topics and delivery channels, and use of technology and contractors.

    a. Are the Bureau's financial education programs focusing on the right topics and areas to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions?

    b. What financial education topics should the Bureau address?

    c. What delivery channels should the Bureau use to conduct financial education programs?

    d. What technologies should the Bureau use to provide financial education?

    e. How should the Bureau use contractors in its financial education work?

    f. Should the Bureau's financial education work focus on other populations or audiences, in addition to the general population and those specific populations referenced in the statute?

    2. Measuring the effectiveness of the Bureau's financial education programs.

    a. How should the Bureau measure the success of its financial education programs?

    b. How should the Bureau measure return on investment of financial education programs?

    c. How should the Bureau measure the benefit of its financial education work? Should the measures vary depending on the type of education, the topic, or the delivery channel?

    d. Is there one set of metrics for program effectiveness that the Bureau could use across its financial education programs, or should it use different metrics depending on the type of program and delivery method (e.g., online versus through a community channel)?

    e. How can the Bureau's financial well-being scale be used to measure the effectiveness of financial education programs?

    f. Should the Bureau consider adopting any measures of success for financial education that are used by others? What are those measures?

    3. Avoiding duplication in financial education between the Bureau and other federal agencies or other entities.

    a. Are there programs at other federal agencies that are similar to the Bureau's programs? Are these programs or aspects of these programs more or less effective than the Bureau's? If so, how and why?

    b. Are there ways to improve coordination in financial education activities between the Bureau and other agencies?

    4. Are there other perspectives or information that will assist the Bureau in its financial education work?

    Authority:

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

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07222 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2018-OS-0018] 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 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy 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 June 8, 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 Executive Director of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, USD P&R (MPP) AFCB, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 2D580, Washington, DC 20301-4000, or call the Office of the Executive Director of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board at 703-697-9015.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Services; DD Form 2088; OMB Control Number 0704-0190.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary to provide certification that a Religious Ministry Professional is professionally qualified to become a chaplain.

    Affected Public: Not-For-Profit Institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 375.

    Number of Respondents: 150.

    Responses per Respondent: 10.

    Annual Responses: 1,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The DD Form 2088 is used to verify the professional and ecclesiastical qualifications of Religious Ministry Professionals for initial appointment or a chaplain's change of career status appointments as chaplains in the Military Service. This form is an essential element of a chaplain's professional qualifications and will become a part of a chaplain's military personnel record. DoD listed endorsing agents utilize the form to endorse military chaplains representing their organizations.

    Dated: April 4, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07148 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality Integrity; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and location for the May 22-24, 2018 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and provides information to members of the public regarding the meeting, including requesting to make oral comments. The notice of this meeting is required under § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and § 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.

    DATES:

    The NACIQI meeting will be held on May 22, 23, and 24, 2018, each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Double Tree by Hilton Washington DC Crystal City, Washington Ballroom, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Hong, Executive Director/Designated Federal Official, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 271-03, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-7805, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NACIQI's Statutory Authority and Function: NACIQI is established under § 114 of the HEA. NACIQI advises the Secretary of Education with respect to:

    • The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part G, Title IV of the HEA, as amended.

    • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.

    • The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.

    • The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA and part C, subchapter I, chapter 34, Title 42, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.

    • The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.

    • Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.

    Meeting Agenda: Agenda items for the May 2018 meeting are below.

    Applications for Renewal of Recognition

    1. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation, within the United States, of Didactic and Coordinated Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, postbaccalaureate Dietetic Internships, and Dietetic Technician Programs at the associate degree level, and for its accreditation of such programs offered via distance education.

    2. Accreditation Council on Optometric Education. Scope of

    Recognition: The accreditation in the United States of professional optometric degree programs, optometric technician (associate degree) programs, and optometric residency programs, and for the pre-accreditation category of Preliminary Approval for professional optometric degree programs.

    3. Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and“Candidate”) within the United States of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools.

    4. Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of institutions and programs of nurse anesthesia at the post master's certificate, master's, or doctoral degree levels in the United States, and its territories, including programs offering distance education.

    5. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation of medical education programs within the United States leading to the M.D. degree.

    6. National Association of Schools of Art and Design. Scope of Recognition: For the accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering art/design and art/design-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.

    7. Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) of postsecondary degree-granting educational institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these institutions.

    Compliance Report

    1. American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm. That letter identifies the following Criterion as areas of noncompliance: 34 CFR 602.15(a)(1), 602.15(a)(2), 602.15(a)(3), 602.16(a)(1)(viii), and 602.17(b). Scope of Recognition: The accreditation throughout the United States of programs in legal education that lead to the first professional degree in law as well as freestanding law schools offering such programs. This recognition also extends to the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education (Accreditation Committee) for decisions involving continued accreditation (referred to by the agency as “approval”) of law schools.

    2. American Osteopathic Association, Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation. Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm. That letter identifies the following Criterion as areas of noncompliance: 34 CFR 602.11, 602.13, 602.15(a)(3), 602.16(a)(1)(i), 602.16(a)(1)(ii), 602.16(a)(1)(iii), 602.16(a)(1)(iv), 602.16(a)(1)(v), 602.16(a)(1)(vi), 602.16(a)(1)(vii), 602.16(a)(1)(viii), 602.16(a)(1)(ix), 602.16(a)(1)(x), 602.16(a)(2), 602.17(a), 602.19(b), 602.20(a), and 602.26(b).

    3. American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation. Findings identified in the September 22, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm. That letter identifies the following Criterion as areas of noncompliance: 34 CFR 602.19(a), and 602.20(b). Scope of Recognition: The accreditation in the United States of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology. The preaccreditation in the United States of doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology.

    4. Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission. Findings identified in the October 28, 2016 letter from the senior Department official following the June 23, 2016 NACIQI meeting available at: https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/finalstaffreports.cfm. That letter identifies the following Criterion as areas of noncompliance: 34 CFR 602.15(a)(2), and 602.19(b). Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate” Status) of Christian postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education.

    Application for an Expansion of Scope

    Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) within the United States of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools. Requested Scope: The accreditation of advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic institutions in the United States which grant postsecondary degrees such as Associate, Baccalaureate, Masters, Doctorate, First Rabbinic and First Talmudic degrees.

    Application for Renewal of Recognition—State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education

    Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs.

    Reducing Regulatory Burden in Accreditation

    Update from the U.S. Department of Education on efforts to reduce regulatory burden and improve efficiencies in the accreditation program.

    Oversight of For-Profit Institutions' Conversions to Non-Profit Entities

    NACIQI received a letter from U.S. Senators Warren, Brown, Murray, Durbin, and Blumenthal, regarding their concerns of for-profit institutions converting to, or attempting to convert to, non-profit entities in order to avoid regulatory scrutiny. This letter is available at: https://sites.ed.gov/naciqi/files/2018/03/2018.01.11-Letter-to-NACIQI-re-sectorial-conversions.pdf. NACIQI will discuss this letter and the issues it raises at the meeting.

    Presentation on Outcome Measures (OM) Component of the U.S. Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for Inclusion in the Accreditor Dashboards Presentation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior Colleges and University Commission (WSCUC)

    WSCUC will present on its Graduation Rate Dashboard tool (GRD), and how the agency uses outcome measures, such as the GRD, as part of its accreditation process. This presentation is responsive to NACIQI's line of inquiry into how accrediting agencies use data to inform the accreditation process.

    Subcommittee on Data

    The subcommittee on data will report out on its activities since the last NACIQI meeting.

    Meeting Discussion

    In addition to following the HEA, the FACA, implementing regulations, and the NACIQI charter, as well as its customary procedural protocols, NACIQI inquiries will include the questions and topics listed in the pilot plan it adopted at its December 2015 meeting. A document entitled “June 2016 Pilot Plan” and available at: http://sites.ed.gov/naciqi/files/naciqi-dir/2016-spring/pilot-project-march-2016.pdf, provides further explanation and context framing NACIQI's work. As noted in this document, NACIQI's reviews of accrediting agencies will include consideration of data and information available on the accreditation data dashboards, https://sites.ed.gov/naciqi/files/2017/09/Institutional-Performance-by-Accreditor-June-2017-Corrected.pdf. Accrediting agencies that will be reviewed for renewal of recognition will not be on the consent agenda and are advised to come prepared to answer questions related to the following:

    • Decision activities of and data gathered by the agency.

    ○ NACIQI will inquire about the range of accreditation activities of the agency since its prior review for recognition, including discussion about the various favorable, monitoring, and adverse actions taken. Information about the primary standards cited for the monitoring and adverse actions that have been taken will be sought.

    ○ NACIQI will also inquire about what data the agency routinely gathers about the activities of the institutions it accredits and about how that data is used in their evaluative processes.

    • Standards and practices with regard to student achievement.

    ○ How does your agency address “success with respect to student achievement” in the institutions it accredits?

    ○ Why was this strategy chosen? How is this appropriate in your context?

    ○ What are the student achievement challenges in the institutions accredited by your agency?

    ○ What has changed/is likely to change in the standards about student achievement for the institutions accredited by your agency?

    ○ In what ways have student achievement results been used for monitoring or adverse actions?

    • Agency activities in improving program/institutional quality.

    ○ How does this agency define “at risk?”

    ○ What tools does this agency use to evaluate “at risk” status?

    ○ What tools does this agency have to help “at risk” institutions improve?

    ○ What can the agency tell us about how well these tools for improvement have worked?

    To the extent NACIQI's questions go to improvement of institutions and programs that are not at risk of falling into noncompliance with agency requirements, the responses will be used to inform NACIQI's general policy recommendations to the Department rather than its recommendations regarding recognition of any individual agency.

    The discussions and issues described above are in addition to, rather than substituting for, exploration by Committee members of any topic relevant to recognition.

    Submission of Requests To Make an Oral Comment Regarding a Specific Accrediting Agency or State Approval Agency Under Review, or To Make an Oral Comment or Written Statement Regarding Other Issues Within the Scope of NACIQI's Authority

    Opportunity to submit a written comment regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review was solicited by a previous Federal Register notice published on January 24, 2018 (Vol. 83, No. 16). The comment period for submission of such comments closed on February 16, 2018. A second notice was published on February 22, 2018 (Vol. 83, No. 36) extending the written comment period until March 1, 2018 for the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools and the American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Subsequently, a corrected notice was published on February 28, 2018 (Vol. 83, No. 40) clarifying the scope of written comments that could be submitted regarding the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools and the American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Because all deadlines have passed, no further written comments regarding a specific agency or state approval agency under review will be accepted at this time. Members of the public may submit written statements regarding other issues within the scope of NACIQI's authority for consideration by the Committee in the manner described below. No individual in attendance or making oral presentations may distribute written materials at the meeting. Oral comments may not exceed three minutes.

    Written statements and oral comments concerning NACIQI's work outside of a specific accrediting agency under review must be limited to the scope of NACIQI's authority as outlined under section 114 of the HEA.

    There are two methods the public may use to request to make a third-party oral comment of three minutes or less at the May 22-24, 2018 meeting. To submit a written statement to NACIQI concerning its work outside a specific accrediting agency under review, please follow Method One.

    Method One: Submit a written request by email to the [email protected] mailbox. Please do not send material directly to NACIQI members. Written statements to NACIQI concerning its work outside a specific accrediting agency under review, and requests to make oral comments, must be received by May 9, 2018, and include the subject line “Oral Comment Request: (agency name),” “Oral Comment Request: (subject)” or “Written Statement: (subject).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, telephone number, of the person(s) submitting a written statement or requesting to speak, and a brief summary (not to exceed one page) of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation. All individuals submitting an advance request in accordance with this notice will be afforded an opportunity to speak.

    Method Two: Register at the meeting location on May 22, 2018, from 7:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m., to make an oral comment during NACIQI's deliberations. The requestor must provide the subject or agency name on which he or she wishes to comment, in addition to his or her name, title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. A total of up to fifteen minutes for each agenda item will be allotted for oral commenters who register on May 22, 2018 by 8:30 a.m. Individuals will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. If selected, each commenter's remarks may not exceed three minutes.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the NACIQI website within 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 453-7615 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1011c.

    Lynn B. Mahaffie, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Policy and Innovation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07212 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-338-B] Application To Export Electric Energy; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Application.

    SUMMARY:

    Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Shell Energy or Applicant) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On May 9, 2013, DOE issued Order No. EA-338-A to Shell Energy, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on May 5, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Shell Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-338 for an additional five-year term.

    In its application, Shell Energy states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Shell Energy proposes to export to Mexico would be purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Shell Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning Shell Energy's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-338-B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Serena A. Rwejuna, Bracewell LLP, 2001 M Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036 and David L. Smith, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., 1000 Main, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77002.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected].

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2018. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07199 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Public Meeting of the Supercritical CO2 Oxy-combustion Technology Group AGENCY:

    National Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) will host a public meeting via WebEx April 24, 2018, of the Supercritical CO2 Oxy-combustion Technology Group, to address challenges associated with oxy-combustion systems in directly heated supercritical CO2 (sCO2) power cycles.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on April 24, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held via WebEx and hosted by NETL.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information regarding the public meeting, please contact Seth Lawson or Walter Perry at NETL by telephone at (304) 285-4469, by email at [email protected], [email protected], or by postal mail addressed to National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507-0880. Please direct all media inquiries to the NETL Public Affairs Officer at (304) 285-0228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Instructions and Information on the Public Meeting

    The public meeting will be held via WebEx. The public meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. Agenda details will be available prior to the meeting on the NETL website, https://www.netl.doe.gov/events/sco2-tech-group. Interested parties may RSVP, to confirm their participation and receive login instructions, by emailing [email protected]

    The objective of the Supercritical CO2 Oxy-combustion Technology Group is to promote a technical understanding of oxy-combustion for direct-fired sCO2 power cycles by sharing information or viewpoints from individual participants regarding risk reduction and challenges associated with developing the technology.

    Oxy-combustion systems in directly heated supercritical CO2 (SCO2) power cycles utilize natural gas or syngas oxy-combustion systems to produce a high temperature SCO2 working fluid and have the potential to be efficient, cost effective and well-suited for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture. To realize the benefits of direct fired SCO2 power cycles, the following challenges must be addressed: chemical kinetic uncertainties, combustion instability, flowpath design, thermal management, pressure containment, definition/prediction of turbine inlet conditions, ignition, off-design operation, transient capabilities, in-situ flame monitoring, and modeling, among others.

    The format of the meeting will facilitate equal opportunity for discussion among all participants; all participants will be welcome to speak. Following a detailed presentation by one volunteer participant regarding lessons learned from his or her area of research, other participants will be provided the opportunity to briefly share lessons learned from their own research. Meetings are expected to take place every other month with a different volunteer presenting at each meeting. Meeting minutes shall be published for those who are unable to attend.

    This meeting is considered “open-to-the-public;” the purpose for this meeting has been examined during the planning stages, and NETL management has made specific determinations that affect attendance. All information presented at this meeting must meet criteria for public sharing or be published and available in the public domain. Participants should not communicate information that is considered official use only, proprietary, sensitive, restricted or protected in any way. Foreign nationals, who may be present, have not been approved for access to DOE information and technologies.

    Dated: March 28, 2018. Heather Quedenfeld, Associate Director, Coal Technology Development & Integration Center, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07197 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-339-B] Application To Export Electric Energy; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Application.

    SUMMARY:

    Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Applicant or Shell Energy) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.§ 824a(e)).

    On May 9, 2013, DOE issued Order No. EA-339-A to Shell Energy, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expires on May 5, 2018. On February 26, 2018, Shell Energy filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-339 for an additional five-year term.

    In its application, Shell Energy states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Shell Energy proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Shell Energy have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    PROCEDURAL MATTERS:

    Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning Shell Energy's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-339-B. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Serena A. Rwejuna, Bracewell LLP, 2001 M Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036 and David L. Smith, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., 1000 Main, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77002.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2018. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07198 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket Nos. EA-444, EA-445, EA-446, EA-447, EA-448, EA-449 and EA-450] Application To Export Electric Energy; Emera Energy Services Subsidiaries AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Seven power marketing subsidiaries of Emera Incorporated (Emera) have applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.§ 824a(e)).

    On February 22, 2018, seven subsidiaries of Emera each separately applied to DOE for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. The Applicants are: Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 9 LLC (EESS-9) (OE Docket No. EA-444); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 10 LLC (EESS-10) (OE Docket No. EA-445); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 11 LLC (EESS-11) (OE Docket No. EA-446); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 12 LLC (EESS-12) (OE Docket No. EA-4447; Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 13 LLC (EESS-13) (OE Docket No. EA-448); Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 14 LLC (EESS-14) (OE Docket No. EA-449); and Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 15 LLC (EESS-15) (OE Docket No. EA-450).

    In its application, each Applicant states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that each Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket Nos. EA-444, EA-445, EA-446, EA-447, EA-448, EA-449 or EA-450 as listed above. An additional copy is to be provided to both Michael G. Henry, Emera Energy Services, Inc., 101 Federal St., Suite 1101, Boston, MA 02110 and to Bonnie A. Suchman, Esq., Suchman Law LLC, 8104 Paisley Place, Potomac, MD 20854.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2018. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07201 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-39-000; CP18-40-000] Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project; Navajo Tribal Utility Authority

    On December 22, 2017, Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company (Questar) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-39-000 requesting permission pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon all of its certificated facilities, part by sale to Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and part in place. The proposed Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) includes the abandonment of about 488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.

    On December 22, 2017, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority filed a related application in Docket No. CP18-40-000 requesting a service area determination pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act to utilize those acquired facilities to provide to its own service.

    On January 3, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Applications for the proposals. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—April 25, 2018 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—July 24, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    Questar proposes to abandon about 488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. About 220 miles proposed for abandoned in place are in San Bernardino County, California and Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino and Apache Counties, Arizona. About 268 miles would be abandoned by sale are in Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona; San Yuan County, New Mexico and San Yuan County, Utah.

    Background

    On February 8, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and one landowner (Atkinson Trading Company). The primary issues raised by the commentors are purpose and need; water resources; fish and wildlife; cultural resources and tribal consultation; air quality and noise; impacts on landowners, including eminent domain; cumulative impacts; and alternatives.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-39 and CP18-40), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07134 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-664-000.

    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 3/29/18.

    Accession Number: 20180329-5371.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-665-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/29/18.

    Accession Number: 20180329-5372.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-666-000.

    Applicants: Bison Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Company Use Gas Annual Report of Bison Pipleine LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180328-5289.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-667-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Annual Fuel and Losses Retention Calculations of Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Filed Date: 3/29/18.

    Accession Number: 20180329-5373.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-668-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Annual Incidental Purchases and Sales Report of Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180330-5318.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-669-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Pensacola 43993 to BP 49330 to 49345) to be effective4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-670-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Petrohawk 41455 releases eff 4-1-2018) to be effective4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-671-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Newfield 18 releases eff 4-1-2018) to be effective4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-672-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Gulfport 34939, 35446 to Eco-Energy 37068, 37069) to be effective 4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-673-000.

    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Update Non-Conforming and Negotiated Rate Agreements—April 2018 to be effective 4/2/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-674-000.

    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Update Non-Conforming and Negotiated Rate Agreements—April 2018 to be effective4/2/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-675-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreements—4/1/2018 to be effective4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-676-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Con Edison Releases eff 4-1-2018 Filing #3 to be effective4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-677-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 040218 Negotiated Rates—Sierentz Global Merchants R-7845-04 to be effective4/3/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-678-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20180402 Negotiated Rate to be effective 4/3/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-679-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Request for Waiver of Section 284.13(d)(1) of the Commission's regulations of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180330-5338.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07138 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-79-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc., Ace Wind LLC, Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC.

    Description: Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc., et al. for Authorization under FPA Section 203 for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5400.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3199-004.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Supplement to December 29, 2017 Updated Market Analysis in the Central Region of MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5404.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-728-001.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-04-03 Petition for Tariff Waiver to Delay Implementation RAAIM Methodology to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/3/18.

    Accession Number: 20180403-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1263-001.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Amendment No. 1 to Westside Power Authority IA and WDT SA (SA 15) to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1264-001.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MPS Electric Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5184

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1267-001.

    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended OATT Tariff Filing to be effective 3/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5274.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1286-000.

    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Reactive Service Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5301.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1287-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL; Forward Capacity Market Revisions to be effective6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5324.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1288-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-04-02 Petition for Tariff Waiver to Delay Implementation RAAIM Methodology to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.

    Accession Number: 20180402-5364.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1289-000.

    Applicants: Industrial Assets, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 6/2/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/3/18.

    Accession Number: 20180403-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1290-000.

    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Design Engineering Construction Agreement between NSTAR and New England Power Co to be effective4/3/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/3/18.

    Accession Number: 20180403-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1291-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-04-03_SA 3028 Ameren IL-Prairie Power Project#12 Atkinson to be effective 3/8/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/3/18.

    Accession Number: 20180403-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07137 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202)502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited 1. CP15-558-000 3-19-2018 Mass Mailings.1 2. CP17-101-000 3-22-2018 Kelley Armstrong. 3. CP17-101-000 3-22-2018 Karl Kimmich. 4. CP17-101-000 3-22-2018 Michael Butler. 5. CP17-101-000 3-22-2018 Bill Kelley, Sr. 6. CP15-558-000 3-22-2018 William Gill Smith. Exempt 1. P-2305-000 3-22-2018 U.S. House Representative Brian Babin, D.D.S. 2. CP15-88-000 3-23-2018 Boyle County, Kentucky Fiscal Court. 3. CP17-101-000 3-26-2018 U.S. Senator Cory A. Booker. 4. CP16-121-000 3-27-2018 U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. 5. CP16-10-000, CP15-554-000 3-29-2018 U.S. House Representative David E. Price. 1 Eight letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. Dated: April 3, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07139 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1966-000] Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

    On September 28, 2012, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, licensee for the Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project facility is located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin.

    The license for Project No. 1966 was issued for a period ending March 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.

    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 1966 is issued to the licensee for a period effective April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before March 31, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.

    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, is authorized to continue operation of the Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07136 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1940-000] Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

    On September 28, 2012, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, licensee for the Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project facility is located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin.

    The license for Project No.1940 was issued for a period ending March 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.

    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 1940 is issued to the licensee for a period effective April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before March 31, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.

    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, is authorized to continue operation of the Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07135 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 24, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. The DeNault Family Trust dated August 18, 1978, as restated in full on June 1, 2009, Boulder Creek, California (“Trust”), and its trustees, John M. Cullison, Concord, California, Bodey D. DeNault, Ridgefield, Washington, Jean W. DeNault, Boulder Creek, California, John B. DeNault III, Fullerton, California, Kenneth J. DeNault, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Wendy Robeson, Raleigh, North Carolina, and John R. Stowe, Laguna Woods, California; to retain additional voting shares of Liberty Bancorp, and thereby retain voting shares of Liberty Bank, both of South San Francisco, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07194 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 7, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Rock Rivers Bancorp, Rock Rapids, Iowa; to become a bank holding company upon conversion of its subsidiary Frontier Bank, Rock Rapids, Iowa, from a savings association to a South Dakota state-chartered bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07195 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (Wool Rules). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Wool Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/woolrulespra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 16 CFR part 300.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0100.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (Wool Act) 1 prohibits the misbranding of wool products. The Wool Rules establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Rules.

    1 15 U.S.C. 68 et seq.

    On January 16, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Wool Rules. 83 FR 2154. No germane comments were received.2 As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    2 The Commission received four non-germane comments.

    Likely Respondents: Manufacturers, importers, processors and marketers of wool products.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure; recordkeeping requirement.

    Estimated annual hours burden: 1,880,000 hours (160,000 recordkeeping hours + 1,720,000 disclosure hours).

    Recordkeeping: 160,000 hours [4,000 wool firms incur an average 40 hours per firm].

    Disclosure: 1,720,000 hours [240,000 hours for determining label content + 480,000 hours to draft and order labels + 1,000,000 hours to attach labels].

    Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $23,740,000 (solely relating to labor costs).3

    3 The 60-Day Federal Register notice incorrectly set out $16,380,000 as the estimated annual cost burden for labor costs. However, the same notice also correctly included $23,740,000 as this estimated cost after tabulating the constituent numbers. 83 FR 2154, 2155.

    Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 9, 2018. Write “Wool Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/woolrulespra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at https://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that website.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Wool Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 9, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07128 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods As Amended (Care Labeling Rule). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Care Labeling Rule: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/carelabelingrulepra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: The Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods As Amended (Care Labeling Rule), 16 CFR 423.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0103.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Care Labeling Rule requires manufacturers and importers to attach a permanent care label to all covered textile clothing in order to assist consumers in making purchase decisions and in determining what method to use to clean their apparel. Also, manufacturers and importers of piece goods used to make textile clothing must provide the same care information on the end of each bolt or roll of fabric.

    On January 16, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Care Labeling Rule. 83 FR 2156. No germane comments were received.1 As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    1 The Commission received five non-germane comments.

    Estimated Annual Hours Burden: 32,600,587 hours (solely relating to disclosure 2 ) (1,074,400 hours to determine care instructions + 859,520 hours to draft and order labels + 30,666,666 hours to attach labels).

    2 The Care Labeling Rule imposes no specific recordkeeping requirements. Although the Rule requires manufacturers and importers to have reliable evidence to support the recommended care instructions, companies in some circumstances can rely on current technical literature or past experience.

    Likely Respondents: Manufacturers or importers of textile apparel.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure.

    Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $214,221,229 (solely relating to labor costs).

    Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 9, 2018. Write “Care Labeling Rule: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/carelabelingrulepra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that website.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Care Labeling Rule: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 9, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07126 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Rules). The clearance expires on April 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/textilerulespra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 16 CFR part 303.

    OMB Control Number: 3084-0101.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act) 1 prohibits the misbranding and false advertising of textile fiber products. The Textile Rules establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions, and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Rules. The Rules also contain a petition procedure for requesting the establishment of generic names for textile fibers.

    1 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.

    On January 22, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Textile Rules. 83 FR 2992. No germane comments were received.2 As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.

    2 The Commission received three non-germane comments.

    Likely Respondents: Manufacturers, importers, processors and marketers of textile fiber products.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure; recordkeeping requirement.

    Estimated annual hours burden: 37,007,147 hours (782,600 recordkeeping hours + 36,224,547 disclosure hours).

    Recordkeeping: 782,600 hours (approximately 12,040 textile firms incur average burden of 65 hours per firm).

    Disclosure: 36,224,547 hours (698,360 hours to determine label content + 859,520 hours to draft and order labels + 34,666,667 hours to attach labels).

    Estimated annual cost burden: 239,778,909 (solely relating to labor costs).

    Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 9, 2018. Write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/textilerulespra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that website.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Textile Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 9, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07127 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1069] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0052. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830—21 CFR part 607 OMB Control Number 0910-0052—Extension

    Under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360), any person owning or operating an establishment that manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes a drug or device must register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on or before December 31 of each year, his or her name, places of business, and all such establishments, among other information, and must submit a list of all drug and all device products manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed by him or her for commercial distribution, among other information. In part 607 (21 CFR part 607), FDA has issued regulations implementing these requirements for manufacturers of human blood and blood products.

    Section 607.20(a), requires, in part, that owners or operators of certain establishments that engage in the manufacture of blood products register and submit a list of every blood product in commercial distribution.

    Section 607.21 requires the owner or operator of an establishments entering into the manufacturing of blood products to register the establishment within 5 days after beginning such operation and to submit a list of every blood product in commercial distribution at the time. If the owner or operator of the establishment has not previously entered into such operation for which a license is required, registration must follow within 5 days after the submission of a biologics license application. In addition, owners or operators of all establishments so engaged must register annually between October 1 and December 31 and update their blood product listing every June and December.

    Section 607.22(a) requires, in part, that initial and subsequent registrations and product listings be submitted electronically through the Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing system or any future superseding electronic system.

    Section 607.22(b) requires, in part, that requests for a waiver of the requirements of § 607.22 be submitted in writing and include the specific reasons why electronic submission is not reasonable for the registrant.

    Section 607.22(c) provides that if FDA grants the waiver request, FDA may limit its duration and will specify the terms of the waiver and provide information on how to submit establishment registration, drug listings, other information, and updates, as applicable (e.g., Form FDA 2830).

    Section 607.25 sets forth the information required for establishment registration and blood product listing.

    Section 607.26 requires, in part, that certain changes, such as ownership or location changes, be submitted to FDA electronically as an amendment to establishment registration within 5 calendar days of such changes using the FDA Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing system, or any future superseding electronic system.

    Section 607.30(a), in part, sets forth the information required from owners or operators of establishments when they update their blood product listing information in June and December of each year (at a minimum).

    Section 607.31 requires that certain additional blood product listing information be provided upon request by FDA.

    Section 607.40 requires, in part, that certain foreign blood product establishments comply with the establishment registration and blood product listing information requirements in part 607, subpart B (§§ 607.20 through 607.39, 607.40(a) and (b)), and provide the name and address of the establishment and the name of the individual responsible for submitting establishment registration and blood product listing information (§ 607.40(c)) as well as the name, address, and phone number of its U.S. agent (§ 607.40(d)).

    This information assists FDA in its inspections of facilities, among other uses, and its collection is essential to the overall regulatory scheme designed to ensure the safety of the Nation's blood supply.

    Respondents to this collection of information are human blood and plasma donor centers, blood banks, certain transfusion services, other blood product manufacturers, and independent laboratories that engage in quality control and testing for registered blood product establishments.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information based upon information obtained from the database of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and FDA experience with the blood establishment registration and product listing requirements.

    In the Federal Register of December 26, 2017 (82 FR 61013), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. We received no comments.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section Activity/form FDA 2830 Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    607.20(a), 607.21, 607.22, 607.25, and 607.40 Initial Registration 115 1 115 1 115 607.21, 607.22, 607.25, 607.26, 607.31, and 607.40 Annual Registration 2,612 1 2,612 0.5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 1,306
    607.21, 607.25, 607.30(a), 607.31, and 607.40 Product Listing Update 200 1 200 0.25
  • (15 minutes)
  • 50
    607.22(b) Waiver Requests 25 25 1 25 Total 1,496 1There are no capital costs of operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden for this information collection has changed since the last OMB approval. Because of a slight increase in the number of initial registrations and product listing updates FDA has received during the past 3 years, we have increased our reporting burden estimate.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07145 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0545] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0256. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Infant Formula Requirements—21 CFR parts 106 and 107 OMB Control Number 0910-0256—Extension

    This information collection supports FDA regulations regarding infant formula requirements. Statutory requirements for infant formula under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) are intended to protect the health of infants and include a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Among other things, section 412 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350a) requires manufacturers of infant formula to establish and adhere to quality control procedures, notify us when a batch of infant formula that has left the manufacturers' control may be adulterated or misbranded, and keep records of distribution. We also regulate the labeling of infant formula under the authority of section 403 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343). The purpose of the labeling requirements is to ensure that consumers have the information they need to prepare and use infant formula appropriately. The regulations for infant formula requirements are codified in 21 CFR parts 106 and 107.

    To assist respondents with applicable reporting provisions found in the regulations, we have developed an electronic Form FDA 3978 that allows infant formula manufacturers to electronically submit reports and notifications in a standardized format. Form FDA 3978 prompts respondents to include information in a standardized format and helps respondents organize submissions to include only the information needed for our review. Draft screenshots of Form FDA 3978 and instructions are available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/InfantFormula/default.htm. Form FDA 3978 was deployed in 2017 as a pilot by FDA and, while informal feedback regarding its use has been favorable, we continue to invite comment. If manufacturers prefer, however, FDA continues to accept paper submissions.

    In the Federal Register of November 15, 2017, we published a notice inviting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received. We therefore retain our original burden estimate for the information collection, which is as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 FD&C act or 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • Total hours
    Reports; Section 412(d) of the FD&C Act 5 13 65 10 650 Notifications; § 106.120(b) 1 1 1 4 4 Reports for Exempt Infant Formula; § 107.50(b)(3) and (4) 3 2 6 4 24 Notifications for Exempt Infant Formula;§ 107.50(e)(2) 1 1 1 4 4 Requirements for Quality Factors Growth Monitoring Study Exemption; § 106.96(c) 4 9 36 20 720 Requirements for Quality Factors—PER Exemption; § 106.96(g) 1 34 34 12 408 New Infant Formula Registration; § 106.110 4 9 36 0.50 (30 minutes) 18 New Infant Formula Submission; § 106.120 4 9 36 10 360 Total 2,188 1 There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with the information collection.

    In compiling these estimates, we consulted our records of the number of infant formula submissions we received under the information collection. All infant formula submissions may be provided to us in electronic format. Our estimate of the time needed per response is based on our experience with similar programs and informal feedback we have received from industry.

    We assume that we will receive 13 reports from 5 manufacturers under section 412(d) of the FD&C Act, for a total of 65 reports annually. We assume each report takes 10 hours to compile for a total of 650 hours annually. We also assume that we will receive one notification under § 106.120(b) and 4 hours is needed per response, for a total of 4 hours annually.

    For exempt infant formula, we assume we will receive two reports from three manufacturers under § 107.50(b)(3) and (4), for a total of six reports annually. We assume each report takes 4 hours to compile for a total burden of 24 hours annually. We also assume we will receive one notification annually under § 107.50(e)(2) and that it takes 4 hours to prepare.

    We assume that 4 firms will submit 36 exemptions under § 106.96(c) and that each exemption will take 20 hours to assemble for a total burden of 720 hours annually, as reflected in row 5 of table 1.

    We assume that the infant formula industry annually submits 35 protein efficiency ratio (PER) submissions. For the submission of the PER exemption, we estimate that the infant formula industry submits 34 exemptions per year and that each exemption takes supporting staff 12 hours to prepare. Therefore, we calculate 34 exemptions × 12 hours per exemption = 408 hours to fulfill the requirements of § 106.96(g), as shown in row 6 of table 1.

    We estimate that four firms each use one senior scientist or regulatory affairs professional who needs 30 minutes to gather and record the required information for an infant formula registration under § 106.110. We estimate that the industry annually registers 35 new infant formulas, or an average of 9 registrations per firm. Therefore, we calculate the annual burden as 36 registrations × 0.5 hour per registration = 17.5 (rounded to 18) hours, as shown in row 7 of table 1.

    We estimate that four firms each use one senior scientist or regulatory affairs professional who needs 10 hours to gather and record information needed for infant formula submissions under § 106.120. This estimate includes the time needed to gather and record the information the manufacturer uses to request an exemption under § 106.91(b)(1)(ii), which provides that the manufacturer includes the scientific evidence that the manufacturer is relying on to demonstrate that the stability of the new infant formula will likely not differ from the stability of formula with similar composition, processing, and packaging for which there are extensive stability data. We estimate that 4 firms make submissions for 36 new infant formulas, or an average of 9 submissions per firm. Therefore, to comply with § 106.120, we calculate the annual burden as 36 submissions × 10 hours per submission = 360 hours, as shown in row 8 of table 1. Thus, the total annual reporting burden is 2,188 hours.

    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Activity; 21 CFR section Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total
  • annual
  • records
  • Average burden
  • per recordkeeping
  • Total
  • hours
  • Controls to prevent adulteration caused by facilities—testing for radiological contaminants; 3 § 106.20(f)(3) 21 1 21 1.5 (90 minutes) 32 Controls to prevent adulteration caused by facilities—recordkeeping of testing for radiological contaminants; 2 §§ 106.20(f)(4) and 106.100(f)(1) 21 1 21 0.08 (5 minutes) 2 Controls to prevent adulteration caused by facilities—testing for bacteriological contaminants § 106.20(f)(3) 5 52 260 0.08 (5 minutes) 21 Controls to prevent adulteration caused by facilities—recordkeeping of testing for bacteriological contaminants §§ 106.20(f)(4) and 106.100(f)(1) 5 52 260 0.08 (5 minutes) 21 Controls to prevent adulteration by equipment or utensils; §§ 106.30(d) and 106.100(f)(2) 5 52 260 0.22 (13 minutes) 57 Controls to prevent adulteration by equipment or utensils; §§ 106.30(e)(3)(iii) and 106.100(f)(3) 5 52 260 0.22 (13 minutes) 57 Controls to prevent adulteration by equipment or utensils; §§ 106.30(f) and 106.100(f)(4) 5 52 260 0.20 (12 minutes) 52 Controls to prevent adulteration due to automatic (mechanical or electronic) equipment; §§ 106.35(c) and 106.100(f)(5) 5 1 5 520 2,600 Controls to prevent adulteration due to automatic (mechanical or electronic) equipment §§ 106.35(c) and 106.100(f)(5) 5 2 10 640 6,400 Controls to prevent adulteration caused by ingredients, containers, and closures; §§ 106.40(d) and 106.100(f)(6) 5 52 260 0.17 (10 minutes) 44 Controls to prevent adulteration during manufacturing; §§ 106.50(a)(1) and 106.100(e) 5 52 260 0.23 (14 minutes) 60 Controls to prevent adulteration from microorganisms; §§ 106.55(d) and 106.100(e)(5)(ii) and (f)(7) 5 52 260 0.25 (15 minutes) 65 Controls to prevent adulteration during packaging and labeling of infant formula; § 106.60(c) 1 12 12 0.25 (15 minutes) 3 General quality control—testing; § 106.91(b)(1), (2), and (3) 4 1 4 2 8 General quality control; §§ 106.91(b)(1) and(d), and 106.100(e)(5)(i) 4 52 208 0.15 (9 minutes) 31 General quality control; §§ 106.91(b)(2) and (d), and 106.100(e)(5)(i) 4 52 208 0.15 (9 minutes) 31 General quality control; §§ 106.91(b)(3) and (d), and 106.100(e)(5)(i) 4 52 208 0.15 (9 minutes) 31 Audit plans and procedures; ongoing review and updating of audits; § 106.94 5 1 5 8 40 Audit plans and procedures —regular audits; § 106.94 5 52 260 4 1,040 Requirements for quality factors for infant formulas—written study report; §§ 106.96(b) and (d), 106.100(p)(1) and (q)(1), and 106.121 1 1 1 16 16 Requirements for quality factors for infant formulas—anthropometric data; §§ 106.96(b)(2) and (d), and 106.100(p)(1) 112 6 672 0.50 (30 minutes) 336 Requirements for quality factors for infant formulas—formula intake §§ 106.96(b)(3) and (d), and 106.100(p)(1) 112 6 672 0.25 (15 minutes) 168 Requirements for quality factors for infant formulas—data plotting; §§ 106.96(b)(4) and (d), and 106.100(p)(1) 112 6 672 0.08 (5 minutes) 54 Requirements for quality factors for infant formulas—data comparison; §§ 106.96(b)(5) and (d), and 106.100(p)(1) 112 6 672 0.08 (5 minutes) 54 Requirements for quality factors—per data collection; § 106.96(f) 1 1 1 8 8 Requirements for quality factors—per written report; § 106.96(f) 1 1 1 1 1 Records; § 106.100 5 10 50 400 20,000 Records for Exempt Infant Formula; § 107.50(c)(3) 3 10 30 300 9,000 Total 40,232 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Where necessary, numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3 This testing only occurs every 4 years.

    We estimate that 21 infant formula plants will test at least every 4 years for radiological contaminants. In addition, we estimate that collecting water for all testing in § 106.20(f)(3) takes between 1 and 2 hours. We estimate that water collection takes an average of 1.5 hours and that water collection occurs separately for each type of testing. We estimate that performing the test will take 1.5 hours per test, every 4 years. Therefore, 1.5 hours per plant × 21 plants = 31.5 (rounded to 32) total hours, every 4 years, as seen in row 1 of table 2. Furthermore, §§ 106.20(f)(4) and 106.100(f)(1) require firms to make and retain records of the frequency and results of water testing. For the 21 plants that are estimated not to currently test for radiological contaminants, this burden is estimated to be 5 minutes per record every 4 years. Therefore, 0.08 hour per record × 21 plants = 1.68 (rounded to 2) hours, every 4 years for the maintenance of records of radiological testing, as seen on row 2 of table 2.

    We estimate that five infant formula plants will test weekly for bacteriological contaminants. We estimate that performing the test will take 5 minutes per test once a week. Annually, this burden is 0.08 hours × 52 weeks = 4.16 hours per year, per plant, and 4.16 hours per plant × 5 plants = 20.8 (rounded to 21) total annual hours, as seen on row 3 of table 2. Furthermore, for the five plants that are estimated to not currently test weekly for bacteriological contaminants, this burden is estimated to be 5 minutes per record, every week. Therefore, 0.08 hour per record × 52 weeks = 4.16 hours per plant for the maintenance of records of bacteriological testing. Accordingly, 4.16 hours × 5 plants = 20.8 (rounded to 21) annual hours, as seen on row 4 of table 2.

    Sections 106.30(d) and 106.100(f)(2) require that records of calibrating certain instruments be made and retained. We estimate that one senior validation engineer for each of the five plants will need to spend about 13 minutes per week to satisfy the ongoing calibration recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.22 hour per record = 57 hours as the annual burden, as presented in row 5 of table 2.

    Sections 106.30(e)(3)(iii) and 106.100(f)(3)) require the recordkeeping of the temperatures of each cold storage compartment. We estimate that five plants will each require one senior validation engineer about 13 minutes per week of recordkeeping. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.22 hours per record = 57 hours as the annual burden, as presented in row 6 of table 2.

    Sections 106.30(f) and 106.100(f)(4) require the recordkeeping of ongoing sanitation efforts. We estimate that five plants will each require one senior validation engineer about 12 minutes per week of recordkeeping. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.20 hours per record = 52 hours as the annual burden, as presented in row 7 of table 2.

    For §§ 106.35(c) and 106.100(f)(5), we estimate that one senior validation engineer per plant needs 10 hours per week of recordkeeping, with the annual burden for this provision being 520 hours per plant × 5 plants = 2,600 annual hours, as shown in row 8 of table 2. In addition, an infant formula manufacturer revalidates its systems when it makes changes to automatic equipment. We estimate that such changes occur twice a year, and that on each of the two occasions, a team of four senior validation engineers per plant needs to work full time for 4 weeks (4 weeks × 40 hours per week = 160 work hours per person) to provide revalidation of the plant's automated systems sufficient to comply with this section. The annual burden for four senior validation engineers each working 160 hours twice a year is 1,280 hours ((160 hours × 2 revalidations) × 4 engineers = 1,280 total work hours) per plant. Therefore, 640 hours × 5 plants × 2 times per year = 6,400 hours as the annual burden, as shown on row 9 of table 2.

    Sections 106.40(d) and 106.100(f)(6) require written specifications for ingredients, containers, and closures. We estimate that one senior validation engineer per plant needs about 10 minutes a week to fulfill the recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records and 260 records × 0.17 hour = 44 hours as the annual burden, as shown in row 10 of table 2.

    We estimate that five plants will change a master manufacturing order and that one senior validation engineer for each of the five plants spends about 14 minutes per week on recordkeeping pertaining to the master manufacturing order, as required by §§ 106.50(a)(1) and 106.100(e). Thus, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.23 hour = 60 hours as the annual burden, as shown in row 11 of table 2.

    Sections 106.55(d), 106.100(e)(5)(ii), and 106.100(f)(7)) require recordkeeping of the testing of infant formula for microorganisms. We estimate that five plants each need one senior validation engineer to spend 15 minutes per week on recordkeeping pertaining to microbiological testing. Thus, 5 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 260 records; 260 records × 0.25 hour per record = 65 hours as the annual burden, as shown in row 12 of table 2.

    Section 106.60 establishes requirements for the recordkeeping and labeling of mixed-lot packages of infant formula. Section 106.60(c) requires infant formula distributors to label infant formula packaging (such as packing cases) to facilitate product tracing and to keep specific records of the distribution of these mixed lot cases. We estimate that one worker needs 15 minutes, once a month (0.25 × 12 months) to accomplish this, for an annual burden of 3 hours, as shown in row 13 of table 2.

    Sections 106.91(b)(1), (2), and (3) provide ongoing stability testing requirements. We estimate that the stability testing requirements has a burden of 2 hours per plant. Therefore, 2 hours × 4 plants = 8 hours as the annual burden to fulfill the testing requirements, as shown in row 14 of table 2.

    Sections 106.91(d) and 106.100(e)(5)(i) provide for recordkeeping of tests required under § 106.91(b)(1), (2), and (3). We estimate that one senior validation engineer per plant will spend about 9 minutes per week of recordkeeping to be in compliance. Thus, 4 recordkeepers × 52 weeks = 208 records; 208 records × 0.15 hour per record = 31.2 (rounded to 31) hours for the annual burden, as shown in rows 15, 16, and 17 of table 2.

    We estimate that the ongoing review and updating of audit plans requires a senior validation engineer 8 hours per year, per plant. Therefore, 8 hours × 5 plants = 40 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 18 of table 2.

    We estimate that a manufacturer chooses to audit once per week. We estimate each weekly audit requires a senior validation engineer 4 hours, or 52 weeks × 4 hours = 208 hours per plant. Therefore, burden for updating audit plans is calculated as 208 hours × 5 plants = 1,040 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 19 of table 2.

    We estimate that, as a result of the regulations, the industry as a whole performs one additional growth study per year, in accordance with § 106.96. The regulations require that several pieces of data be collected and maintained for each infant in the growth study. We estimate that the data collection associated with the growth study is assembled into a written report and kept as a record in compliance with §§ 106.96(d) and 106.100(p)(1). Thus, we estimate that one additional growth study report is generated, and that this report requires one senior scientist to work 16 hours to compile the data into a study report. Therefore, one growth study report × 16 hours = 16 hours for the annual burden for compliance with §§ 106.96(b) and (d), 106.100(p)(1) and (q)(1), and 106.121 as shown in row 20 of table 2.

    A study conducted according to the requirements of § 106.96(b)(2) must include the collection of anthropometric measurements of physical growth and information on formula intake, and §§ 106.96(d) and 106.100(p)(1) require that the anthropometric measurements be made six times during the growth study. We estimate that in a growth study of 112 infants, 2 nurses or other health professionals with similar experience need 15 minutes per infant at each of the required 6 times to collect and record the required anthropometric measurements. Therefore, 2 nurses × 0.25 hours = 0.50 hour per infant, per visit, and 0.50 hour × 6 visits = 3 hours per infant. For 112 infants in the study, 3 hours × 112 infants = 336 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 21 of table 2. In addition, we estimate that one nurse needs 15 minutes per infant to collect and record the formula intake information. That is, 0.25 hour × 6 visits = 1.5 hour per infant, and 1.5 hour per infant × 112 infants = 168 hours for the annual burden, as shown in row 22 of table 2.

    Section 106.96(b)(4) requires plotting each infant's anthropometric measurements on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended World Health Organization Child Growth Standards. We estimate that it takes 5 minutes per infant to record the anthropometric data on the growth chart at each study visit. Therefore, 112 infants × 6 data plots = 672 data plots, and 672 data plots × 0.08 hour per comparison = 53.75 hours (rounded to 54) for the annual burden, as shown in row 23 of table 2.

    Section 106.96(b)(5) requires that data on formula intake by the test group be compared to the intake of a concurrent control group. We estimate that one nurse or other health care professional with similar experience needs 5 minutes per infant for each of the six times anthropometric data are collected. Therefore, 6 comparisons of data × 112 infants = 672 data comparisons and 672 data comparisons × 0.08 hour per comparison = 53.75 hours (rounded to 54) for the annual burden, as shown in row 24 of table 2.

    Section 106.96(f) provides that a manufacturer meets the quality factor of sufficient biological quality of the protein by establishing the biological quality of the protein in the infant formula when fed as the sole source of nutrition using an appropriate modification of the PER rat bioassay. Under § 106.96(g)(1), a manufacturer of infant formula may be exempt from this requirement if the manufacturer requests an exemption and provides assurances, as required under § 106.121, that changes made by the manufacturer to an existing infant formula are limited to changing the type of packaging. A manufacturer may also be exempt from this requirement under § 106.100(g)(2), if the manufacturer requests an exemption and provides assurances, as required under § 106.121, that demonstrate to FDA's satisfaction that the change to an existing formula does not affect the bioavailability of the protein. Finally, a manufacturer of infant formula may be exempt from this requirement under § 106.96(g)(3) if the manufacturer requests an exemption and provides assurances, as required under § 106.121(i), that demonstrate that an alternative method to the PER that is based on sound scientific principles is available to show that the formula supports the quality factor for the biological quality of the protein. We estimate that the infant formula industry submits a total of 35 PER submissions: 34 exemption requests and the results of 1 PER study.

    A PER study conducted according to the Association of Analytical Communities Official Method 960.48 is 28 days in duration. We estimate that there will be 10 rats in the control and test groups (20 rats total) and that food consumption and body weight will be measured at day 0 and at 7-day intervals during the 28-day study period (a total of 5 records per rat). We further estimate that measuring and recording food consumption and body weight will take 5 minutes per rat. Therefore, 20 rats × 5 records = 100 records; 100 records × 0.08 hour minutes per record = 8 hours to fulfill the requirements of § 106.96(f). Further, we estimate that a report based on the PER study will be generated and that this study report will take a senior scientist 1 hour to generate. Therefore, a total of 9 hours will be required to fulfill the requirements for § 106.96(f): 8 hours for the PER study and data collection, and 1 hour for the development of a report based on the PER study, as shown in rows 25 and 26 of table 2.

    We estimate that five firms will expend approximately 20,000 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in § 106.100 and that three firms will expend approximately 9,000 hours per year to fully satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in § 107.50(c)(3). Thus, the total recordkeeping burden is 40,232 hours.

    Table 3—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • disclosures
  • Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total
  • hours
  • Nutrient labeling; 21 CFR 107.10(a) and 107.20 5 13 65 8 520 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We estimate compliance with our labeling requirements in §§ 107.10(a) and 107.20 requires 520 hours annually by five manufacturers.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07147 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2014-N-0075; FDA-2011-N-0015; FDA-2011-N-0076; FDA-2017-N-0932; FDA-2016-N-4487; FDA-2014-N-0345; FDA-2013-N-0523; FDA-2017-N-2428; FDA-2008-N-0312; and FDA-2014-N-1072] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Table 1—List of Information Collections Approved by OMB Title of collection OMB
  • Control No.
  • Date
  • approval
  • expires
  • Good Laboratory Practice Regulations for Nonclinical Studies 0910-0119 1/31/2021 Orphan Drug Designation Request Form and The Common European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration Form for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation 0910-0167 1/31/2021 Electronic Records: Electronic Signatures 0910-0303 1/31/2021 Experimental Study on Warning Statements for Cigarette Graphic Health Warnings 0910-0848 1/31/2021 Consumer and Healthcare Professional Identification of and Responses to Deceptive Prescription Drug Promotion 0910-0849 1/31/2021 Data to Support Drug Product Communications 0910-0695 2/28/2021 Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug 0910-0001 3/31/2021 Animal Drug Adverse Event Reporting and Recordkeeping 0910-0284 3/31/2021 Extralabel Drug Use in Animals 0910-0325 3/31/2021 Application for Participation in FDA Fellowship Programs 0910-0780 3/31/2021
    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07146 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0610] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0701. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Products and Dietary Supplements During an Influenza Pandemic OMB Control Number 0910-0701—Extension

    This information collection supports the above captioned Agency guidance. The guidance includes recommendations for planning, notification, and documentation for firms that report postmarketing adverse events. The guidance recommends that each firm's pandemic influenza continuity of operations plan (COOP) include instructions for reporting adverse events, including a plan for the submission of stored reports that were not submitted within regulatory timeframes. The guidance explains that firms that are unable to fulfill normal adverse event reporting requirements during an influenza pandemic should: (1) Maintain documentation of the conditions that prevent them from meeting normal reporting requirements; (2) notify the appropriate FDA organizational unit responsible for adverse event reporting compliance when the conditions exist and when the reporting process is restored; and (3) maintain records to identify what reports have been stored.

    Based on the number of manufacturers that would be covered by the guidance, we estimate that approximately 5,000 firms will add the following to their COOP: (1) Instructions for reporting adverse events and (2) a plan for submitting stored reports that were not submitted within regulatory timeframes. We estimate that each firm will take approximately 50 hours to prepare the adverse event reporting plan for its COOP.

    We estimate that approximately 500 firms will be unable to fulfill normal adverse event reporting requirements because of conditions caused by an influenza pandemic and that these firms will notify the appropriate FDA organizational unit responsible for adverse event reporting compliance when the conditions exist. Although we do not anticipate such pandemic influenza conditions to occur every year, for purposes of the PRA, we estimate that each of these firms will notify FDA approximately once each year and that each notification will take approximately 8 hours to prepare and submit.

    Concerning the recommendation in the guidance that firms unable to fulfill normal adverse event reporting requirements maintain documentation of the conditions that prevent them from meeting these requirements and also maintain records to identify what adverse event reports have been stored and when the reporting process is restored, we estimate that approximately 500 firms will each need approximately 8 hours to maintain the documentation and that approximately 500 firms will each need approximately 8 hours to maintain the records.

    In the Federal Register of October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50431) we published a notice inviting public comment of the proposed collection of information. Although one comment was received, it did not respond to any of the four information collection topics solicited in the notice under the PRA. We therefore made no changes to our estimate of the burden for the information collection, which remains as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Type of reporting Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Notify FDA when normal reporting is not feasible 500 1 500 8 4,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Type of recordkeeping Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual records Hours per record Total hours
    Add adverse event reporting plan to COOP 5,000 1 5,000 50 250,000 Maintain documentation of influenza pandemic conditions and resultant high absenteeism 500 1 500 8 4,000 Maintain records to identify what reports have been stored and when the reporting process was restored 500 1 500 8 4,000 Total 258,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07154 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0672] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0577. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices OMB Control Number 0910-0577—Extension

    Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements that the label or labeling of a medical device must meet so that it is not misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Section 301 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250) amended section 502 of the FD&C Act to add section 502(u) to require devices (both new and reprocessed) to bear prominently and conspicuously the name of the manufacturer, a generally recognized abbreviation of such name, or a unique and generally recognized symbol identifying the manufacturer.

    Section 2(c) of the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-43) amends section 502(u) of the FD&C Act by limiting the provision to reprocessed single-use devices (SUDs) and the manufacturers who reprocess them. Under the amended provision, if the original SUD or an attachment to it prominently and conspicuously bears the name of the manufacturer, then the reprocessor of the SUD is required to identify itself by name, abbreviation, or symbol in a prominent and conspicuous manner on the device or attachment to the device. If the original SUD does not prominently and conspicuously bear the name of the manufacturer, the manufacturer who reprocesses the SUD for reuse may identify itself using a detachable label that is intended to be affixed to the patient record.

    The requirements of section 502(u) of the FD&C Act impose a minimal burden on industry. This section of the FD&C Act only requires the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a device to include their name and address on the labeling of a device. This information is readily available to the establishment and easily supplied. From its registration and premarket submission database, FDA estimates that there are 67 establishments that distribute approximately 427 reprocessed SUDs. Each response is anticipated to take 0.1 hours (6 minutes) resulting in a total burden to industry of 43 hours.

    In the Federal Register of December 19, 2017 (82 FR 60207), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 12 Type of respondent Number of respondents Number of disclosures per respondent Total annual disclosures Average burden per disclosure Total hours Establishments listing fewer than 10 SUDs 58 2 116 0.1 (6 minutes) 12 Establishments listing 10 or more SUDs 9 34 306 0.1 (6 minutes) 31 Total 43 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Numbers have been rounded.

    The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.

    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07152 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1072] International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Cannabis Plant and Resin; Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis; Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; Stereoisomers of Tetrahydrocannabinol; Cannabidiol; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of five drug substances. These comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drugs. This notice requesting comments is required by the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments by April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 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.

    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-1072 for “International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Cannabis Plant and Resin; Extracts and Tinctures of Cannabis; Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC); Stereoisomers of THC; Cannabidiol; 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:

    James R. Hunter, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5150, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3156, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The United States is a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (Psychotropic Convention). Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention provides that if a party to the convention or WHO has information about a substance, which in its opinion may require international control or change in such control, it shall so notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations (the U.N. Secretary-General) and provide the U.N. Secretary-General with information in support of its opinion.

    Paragraph (d)(2)(A) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) provides that when WHO notifies the United States under Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention that it has information that may justify adding a drug or other substances to one of the schedules of the Psychotropic Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules, the Secretary of State must transmit the notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary of HHS). The Secretary of HHS must then publish the notice in the Federal Register and provide opportunity for interested persons to submit comments that will be considered by HHS in its preparation of the scientific and medical evaluations of the drug or substance.

    II. WHO Notification

    The Secretary of HHS received the following notice from WHO (non-relevant text removed):

    Ref.: C.L.2.2018

    The World Health Organization (WHO) presents its compliments to Member States and Associate Members and has the pleasure of informing that the 40th Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) will meet in Geneva from 4 to 8 June 2018. The 40th ECDD will convene in a special session to review cannabis and cannabis-related substances on their potential to cause dependence, abuse and harm to health, and potential therapeutic applications. WHO will make recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on the need for and level of international control of these substances. Recommendations made from the 39th meeting can be found on the ECDD website (https://www.who.int/mason/entity/medicines/news/2017/letter-DG-39thECDDrecommendations.pdf?ua=1).

    At its 126th session in January 2010, the Executive Board approved the publication “Guidance on the WHO review of psychoactive substances for international control” (EB126/2010/REC1, Annex 6) which requires the Secretariat to request relevant information from Ministers of Health in Member States to prepare a report for submission to the ECDD. For this purpose, a questionnaire was designed to gather information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control for each substance under evaluation. Member States are invited to collaborate, as in the past, in this process by providing pertinent information as requested in the questionnaire and concerning substances under review.

    It would be appreciated if a person from the Ministry of Health could be designated as the focal point responsible for coordinating answers to the questionnaires. A list of focal points designated by Member States for the 39th ECDD in November 2017 is attached. It is requested that if a focal point's contact details including email address are to be added or amended, that Member States inform the Secretariat by 26 February 2018. Any additions or amendments to focal point designations should be emailed to [email protected]

    If no additions or amendments to focal point details are made by this date, the focal point from 2017 will be approached by the Secretariat for questionnaire completion. Where there is a competent National Authority under the International Drug Control Treaties, it is kindly requested that the questionnaires be completed in collaboration with such body.

    Once the Secretariat has received the contact details, focal points will be given further instructions and direct access to an online questionnaire. The questionnaires will be analysed by the Secretariat and prepared as a report that will be published on the ECDD website (https://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/) prior to the 40th ECDD meeting. The provisional agenda for the meeting will also be made available in advance on the ECDD website.

    Member States are also encouraged to provide any additional relevant information (unpublished or published) that is available on these substances to: [email protected] This information will be an invaluable contribution to the ECDD and all submissions will be treated as confidential.

    The WHO takes this opportunity to renew to Member States and Associate Members the assurance of its highest consideration.

    GENEVA, 30 January 2018

    FDA has verified the website addresses contained in the WHO notice, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time. Access to view the WHO questionnaire can be found at https://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/.

    III. Substances Under WHO Review

    WHO will convene in a special session to review the following substances: Cannabis plant and resin; extracts and tinctures of cannabis; delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; stereoisomers of THC; and cannabidiol (CBD).

    The Committee from the 37th ECDD requested that Secretariat begin collecting data towards a pre-review of cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts, and tinctures of cannabis at a future meeting. Subsequent to this request, WHO commissioned two updates on the scientific literature for cannabis and cannabis resin, which were prepared and presented to the 38th ECDD. That Committee noted that the current Schedule I under the 1961 Convention groups together cannabis and cannabis resin, extracts, and tinctures of cannabis, that cannabis plant and cannabis resin are also in Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention, that there are natural and synthetic cannabinoids in Schedule I and Schedule II of the 1971 Convention, and that cannabis had never been subject to pre-review or critical review by the ECDD. The Committee also noted an increase in the use of cannabis and its components for medical purposes and the emergence of new cannabis-related pharmaceutical preparations for therapeutic use. From this review, the 38th ECDD Committee recommended that preparations be made to conduct pre-reviews at a future meeting dedicated to the following substances: Cannabis plant and cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis, THC, CBD, and stereoisomers of THC. An excerpt from the report of the 38th ECDD stated that the purpose of the pre-review was to determine whether current information justifies an Expert Committee critical review. They noted that the categories of information for evaluating substances in pre-reviews are identical to those used in critical reviews and that the pre-review is a preliminary analysis, and findings should not determine whether the control status of a substance should be changed.

    Cannabis, also known as marijuana, refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica plant. It is a complex plant substance containing multiple cannabinoids and other compounds, including the psychoactive chemical THC and other structurally similar compounds. Cannabinoids are defined as having activity at cannabinoid 1 and 2 (CB1 and CB2 respectively) receptors. Agonists of CB1 receptors are widely abused and are known to modulate motor coordination, memory processing, pain, and inflammation, and have anxiolytic effects. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States.

    The principal cannabinoids in the cannabis plant include THC, CBD, and cannabinol. FDA has not approved any product containing or derived from botanical marijuana for any indication. These substances are controlled in Schedule I under the CSA. Synthetic THC (dronabinol) is the active ingredient in two approved drug products in the United States, MARINOL capsules (and generics) and SYNDROS oral solution. MARINOL is controlled in Schedule III, while SYNDROS is controlled in Schedule II under the CSA. Both MARINOL and SYNDROS are approved to treat anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional treatment.

    CBD is another cannabinoid identified in cannabis. CBD has been tested in experimental animal and laboratory models of several neurological disorders, including those of seizure and epilepsy. In the United States, CBD-containing products are in human clinical testing in several therapeutic areas, but no such products have marketing approval by FDA for any medical purposes in the United States. CBD is controlled as a Schedule I substance under the CSA. CBD is not specifically listed in the schedules of the 1961, 1971, or 1988 International Drug Control conventions.

    At the 39th (2017) meeting of the ECDD, the committee pre-reviewed CBD and recommended that extracts or preparations containing almost exclusively CBD be subject to critical review at the 40th ECDD meeting.

    IV. Opportunity To Submit Domestic Information

    As required by paragraph (d)(2)(A) of the CSA, FDA, on behalf of HHS, invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the five drug substances. Any comments received will be considered by HHS when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation of these drug substances, responsive to the WHO Questionnaire request for these drug substances. HHS will forward such evaluation of these drug substances to WHO, for WHO's consideration in deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of these drug substances. Such control could limit, among other things, the manufacture and distribution (import/export) of these drug substances and could impose certain recordkeeping requirements on them.

    Although FDA is, through this notice, requesting comments from interested persons, which will be considered by HHS when it prepares an evaluation of these drug substances, HHS will not now make any recommendations to WHO regarding whether any of these drugs should be subjected to international controls. Instead, HHS will defer such consideration until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in mid-2018. Any HHS position regarding international control of these drug substances will be preceded by another Federal Register notice soliciting public comments, as required by paragraph (d)(2)(B) of the CSA.

    Dated: April 4, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07225 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1175] Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” This draft guidance addresses FDA's current thinking about the relevant age groups to study and how early in the drug development pediatric patients should be incorporated during development of systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis (AD).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 8, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1175 for “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

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

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, 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:

    Dawn Williams, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5168, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5376; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Atopic Dermatitis: Timing of Pediatric Studies During Development of Systemic Drugs.” This draft guidance addresses FDA's current thinking about the relevant age groups to study and how early in the drug development pediatric patients should be incorporated during development of systemic drugs for AD.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the timing of pediatric studies during development of systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis. 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 https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: April 2, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07150 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1414] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling Natural Rubber Latex Condoms AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0633. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling for Natural Rubber Latex Condoms—21 CFR 884.5300 OMB Control Number 0910-0633—Extension

    Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-295), class II devices were defined as those devices for which there was insufficient information to show that general controls themselves would provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness but for which there was sufficient information to establish performance standards to provide such assurance. Accordingly, FDA has established the above captioned Special Controls Guidance Document regarding the labeling of natural rubber latex condoms.

    Condoms without spermicidal lubricant containing nonoxynol 9 are classified in class II. They were originally classified before the enactment of provisions of the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), which broadened the definition of class II devices and now permits FDA to establish special controls beyond performance standards, including guidance documents, to help provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of such devices.

    In December 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-554, which directed FDA to “reexamine existing condom labels” and “determine whether the labels are medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. . . .” In response, FDA recommended labeling intended to provide important information for condom users, including the extent of protection provided by condoms against various types of sexually transmitted diseases.

    Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers and repackagers of male condoms made of natural rubber latex without spermicidal lubricant. FDA expects approximately five new manufacturers or repackagers to enter the market yearly and to collectively have a third-party disclosure burden of 60 hours. The number of respondents cited in table 1 is based on FDA's database of premarket submissions and the electronic registration and listing database. The average burden per disclosure was derived from a study performed for FDA by Eastern Research Group, Inc., an economic consulting firm, to estimate the impact of the 1999 over-the-counter (OTC) human drug labeling requirements final rule (64 FR 13254, March 17, 1999). Because the packaging requirements for condoms are similar to those of many OTC drugs, we believe the burden to design the labeling for OTC drugs is an appropriate proxy for the estimated burden to design condom labeling.

    The special controls guidance document also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.

    The collection of information under 21 CFR 801.437 does not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA. Rather, it is a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).

    In the Federal Register of November 9, 2017 (82 FR 52056) FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received in response to the notice.

    We therefore retain the currently approved burden estimate for the information collection, which is as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling for Natural Rubber Latex Condoms Classified Under 21 CFR 884.5300 5 1 5 12 60 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: April 3, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07153 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1011] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on reporting requirements contained in existing FDA regulations governing petitions to request an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary ingredients.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of June 8, 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-2018-N-1011 for “Petition to Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements.” 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, su